Airbnb removes 80% of advertisements in Amsterdam after registration obligation(ruetir.com)
ruetir.com
Airbnb removes 80% of advertisements in Amsterdam after registration obligation
https://www.ruetir.com/2021/10/18/airbnb-removes-more-than-three-quarters-of-advertisements-in-amsterdam-after-registration-obligation/
395 comments
> Regulatory arbitrage of some sort seems to be involved in many recent digital business models. Whether it concerns or involves (lack of) data privacy regulation, "reinventing" labour contracts or undercutting taxation frameworks, it is a most cruel reminder of how poor the management of the commons.
Well here is the thing, in my country the majority of Airbnb rental are(at least were) illegal. Authorities knew this but hypocritically, illegal rentals were good for tourism, so the state cracked down on a few illegal rentals, for the example, while allowing 99% of them. This is regulatory arbitrage.
Uber on the other hand, didn't have the same luck since legal taxi drivers started to beat up Uber drivers so Uber quickly shut down their operation, as they were running illegal taxis and they couldn't have their cake and eat it too with the justice system... Sometimes it does backfire.
One of the reasons why all these SV tech business got away with it is the fact that they are all located in US, only the landlord or the driver are taking real risks legally. As I said before, if I tried such an operation in my own country, I'll be shut down in no time and sent straight to jail for running illegal hotels. "it's just an app" wouldn't work.
I still think that my government could have banned these apps if they really wanted to at first place, they are so eager to shutdown torrent/illegal VOD websites for instance, but they didn't.
Well here is the thing, in my country the majority of Airbnb rental are(at least were) illegal. Authorities knew this but hypocritically, illegal rentals were good for tourism, so the state cracked down on a few illegal rentals, for the example, while allowing 99% of them. This is regulatory arbitrage.
Uber on the other hand, didn't have the same luck since legal taxi drivers started to beat up Uber drivers so Uber quickly shut down their operation, as they were running illegal taxis and they couldn't have their cake and eat it too with the justice system... Sometimes it does backfire.
One of the reasons why all these SV tech business got away with it is the fact that they are all located in US, only the landlord or the driver are taking real risks legally. As I said before, if I tried such an operation in my own country, I'll be shut down in no time and sent straight to jail for running illegal hotels. "it's just an app" wouldn't work.
I still think that my government could have banned these apps if they really wanted to at first place, they are so eager to shutdown torrent/illegal VOD websites for instance, but they didn't.
> Uber on the other hand, didn't have the same luck since legal taxi drivers started to beat up Uber drivers so Uber quickly shut down their operation, as they were running illegal taxis and they couldn't have their cake and eat it too with the justice system... Sometimes it does backfire.
In my country taxi drivers also started to beat up Uber drivers, but it backfired hard on them, it only reinforced the notion that taxi drivers are dangerous, not to be trusted (after all, if they are the kind of person capable of randomly assaulting business competitor, they certainly are capable of assaulting a client in a disagreement, so why would I risk ride with them?), so the beatings helped steer the public opinion in favour of Uber, resulting in the legalization of Uber. Also, in my country breaking a minor (administrative/civil) law doesn't mean you are not protected by more important criminal law, so the victim Uber drivers did seek criminal charges against the offending Taxi drivers.
Interestingly, in the aftermath, the taxi lobby (which used to be fiercely anti-consumer) worked to reform taxi laws to be much more pro-consumer in order to compete with Uber, they lowered their prices, removed the ridiculous accessory fees (extra for baggage, extra for more than 2 passengers, ...), added a requirement for background checks for drivers (this was a important one), gps tracking of cars, ... . So official taxis actually got much better due to Uber.
In my country taxi drivers also started to beat up Uber drivers, but it backfired hard on them, it only reinforced the notion that taxi drivers are dangerous, not to be trusted (after all, if they are the kind of person capable of randomly assaulting business competitor, they certainly are capable of assaulting a client in a disagreement, so why would I risk ride with them?), so the beatings helped steer the public opinion in favour of Uber, resulting in the legalization of Uber. Also, in my country breaking a minor (administrative/civil) law doesn't mean you are not protected by more important criminal law, so the victim Uber drivers did seek criminal charges against the offending Taxi drivers.
Interestingly, in the aftermath, the taxi lobby (which used to be fiercely anti-consumer) worked to reform taxi laws to be much more pro-consumer in order to compete with Uber, they lowered their prices, removed the ridiculous accessory fees (extra for baggage, extra for more than 2 passengers, ...), added a requirement for background checks for drivers (this was a important one), gps tracking of cars, ... . So official taxis actually got much better due to Uber.
> One of the reasons why all these SV tech business got away with it is the fact that they are all located in US
Well, they could still be (at the very least) prohibited from operating in your country.
Sadly, most of these services (Airbnb, Uber) were also illegal here in the US, but for "some reason" (aka lots and lots of $$$), no one ever bothered enforcement against them. Eventually they spent enough money on bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying to legalize themselves.
(Then, of course, at least in the case of Uber and friends, once they were established they quietly raised prices and reduced driver income, which were the very reasons the short-sighted public liked them so much.)
Well, they could still be (at the very least) prohibited from operating in your country.
Sadly, most of these services (Airbnb, Uber) were also illegal here in the US, but for "some reason" (aka lots and lots of $$$), no one ever bothered enforcement against them. Eventually they spent enough money on bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying to legalize themselves.
(Then, of course, at least in the case of Uber and friends, once they were established they quietly raised prices and reduced driver income, which were the very reasons the short-sighted public liked them so much.)
In defense of the short-sighted public (me), I don’t know the operating costs, profit requirements, accounting model, etc of a hired car service. I can’t assume any time the price of a product goes down, that someone is trying something shady.
I can say I loved Uber et al primarily because unlike any experiences I ever had with calling a taxi, a car actually showed up to bring me to my destination.
If I correctly interpret your definition of “the public” to mean “the common men and women using these services”: it’s a bit unfair to give them the blame, rather than pursue a failure of regulators or regulations.
I can say I loved Uber et al primarily because unlike any experiences I ever had with calling a taxi, a car actually showed up to bring me to my destination.
If I correctly interpret your definition of “the public” to mean “the common men and women using these services”: it’s a bit unfair to give them the blame, rather than pursue a failure of regulators or regulations.
Everybody forgets that this is why Uber did so well in SF. The cabs are complete garbage - they don't come when you call, their credit card machines are always "broken" and the drivers are screaming at people on their cellphones for the whole ride.
Before UberX was a thing I was paying more for Ubers than for cabs because I would get actual, quality service that way. The SF cab industry abused its regulatorily privileged position. If that industry (or their regulators) had enforced even basic decency and respect for their customers, there would've been no need for Uber in the first place.
Before UberX was a thing I was paying more for Ubers than for cabs because I would get actual, quality service that way. The SF cab industry abused its regulatorily privileged position. If that industry (or their regulators) had enforced even basic decency and respect for their customers, there would've been no need for Uber in the first place.
If you didn't know that Uber was skirting regulations to offer their cheap prices, then you literally weren't paying any attention and I don't know how you even knew Uber existed.
> Eventually they spent enough money on bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying to legalize themselves.
It worked for the hotel and taxi industry, seems a logical way to succeed for Uber and Airbnb in the same domains.
It worked for the hotel and taxi industry, seems a logical way to succeed for Uber and Airbnb in the same domains.
Huh? The regulations on the hotel and tax industry are exactly what Uber and Airbnb succeeded by evading.
The thing is, lots of people like Uber and Airbnb. Any action against them is unpopular.
I'm curious if Uber/Lyft is going to last in SF. It does not take more than one $90 for 3 mile ride experience for me and my friends to never want to count on Lyft again.
The way it works is, you think I'll just Uber/Lyft to meet my friends. So you order one say 20 minutes before you're supposed to meet only to find an extremely high price. You pay it so you're not late but then you also vow to plan ahead so you never have to take it again. I haven't taken one since I was burned in June. Another friend got burned last month and I'd guess he's likely to not take another either.
The way it works is, you think I'll just Uber/Lyft to meet my friends. So you order one say 20 minutes before you're supposed to meet only to find an extremely high price. You pay it so you're not late but then you also vow to plan ahead so you never have to take it again. I haven't taken one since I was burned in June. Another friend got burned last month and I'd guess he's likely to not take another either.
I mean, the $90, 3 mile experience doesn't happen as a surprise occurrence... you agree to the price upfront, so you must have really needed to get somewhere 3 miles away as fast as possible. The price being high is just a function of there not being as many drivers available (its especially bad these days as many drivers have moved on to better jobs or not engaged in the workforce or don't want to do this job during covid times)
To your second point, there are still scheduling options, "wait + save" where they do offer pickup 20 min from now and locking in your price, but... if you are using those features couldn't you also use the bus?
I don't see any of your problems steering you back towards taxis, especially in SF where they were AWFUL (can't say if they have improved in the last 7 years)
To your second point, there are still scheduling options, "wait + save" where they do offer pickup 20 min from now and locking in your price, but... if you are using those features couldn't you also use the bus?
I don't see any of your problems steering you back towards taxis, especially in SF where they were AWFUL (can't say if they have improved in the last 7 years)
> You pay it so you're not late but then you also vow to plan ahead so you never have to take it again.
This is (usually) a better situation than when you're burned by phone dispatched taxi than never comes. At least you got where you were going.
This is (usually) a better situation than when you're burned by phone dispatched taxi than never comes. At least you got where you were going.
I noticed this too. When I was in the bay area previously (temporarily) before moving out here permanently, about 2 years ago, I was able to uber places like the grocery store due to not having a car. Flash forward to today and I actually opted to buy my own car because uber and lyft have become ridiculously expensive
The irony of law abiding vigilante drivers beating up regulation abritraging drivers
Recently I heard a joke about postmen leaving aviso instead of delivering post. If you see him leaving aviso, you can legally beat him. You have his signed proof that you weren't home at the time.
'aviso'?
Written notification about tried delivery of a letter or package which can only be received in person. If you are not home, you can go to nearest post office and receive it there. Sorry, I thought it's english word.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/avis#Old_French Wiktionary says it comes from Latin.
In English "advise", alas, not used in the common language in regards to mail, like it is used in Polish (and Czech?).
In English "advise", alas, not used in the common language in regards to mail, like it is used in Polish (and Czech?).
In Spanish 'aviso' would be 'notice' or 'warning'. Italian 'avviso' is kind of similar.
[deleted]
Interestingly not far from the semantics you wanted to convey :-)
Collins ...in British English (əˈvaɪzəʊ) - NOUN
"a boat carrying messages; a dispatch-boat"
Collins ...in British English (əˈvaɪzəʊ) - NOUN
"a boat carrying messages; a dispatch-boat"
Decades ago, if you wanted a work-when-you-want lifestyle and no boss, and you didn't know how to start your own business, becoming a cabbie was the obvious career path. And cabbies do occasionally experience unpleasant customers with nobody to turn to for help, so you have to have a thick skin to last in that job.
For whatever reason, in the US the crowd self-selected towards the immigrant population, whereas in many less developed countries it went towards the bare knuckle boxing type of crowd. No wonder that the latter didn't hesitate to use their knuckles on Uber drivers, whereas in the US that rarely ever happened.
For whatever reason, in the US the crowd self-selected towards the immigrant population, whereas in many less developed countries it went towards the bare knuckle boxing type of crowd. No wonder that the latter didn't hesitate to use their knuckles on Uber drivers, whereas in the US that rarely ever happened.
The thing with legal taxis is that the quality of their service is complete shit. At least in some countries.
You dont know how much you will pay (their estimates are always too low) and the first questions by the driver are to check if you know the town. If you dont sound like a local, then they will drive you through the longest route possible. And worst: you can do nothing about it. No way to report the licensed driver. Before uber it was like a license to steal.
In uber you can give 1 star - so the cheaters dont get any customers + you have some idea of price and route.
You dont know how much you will pay (their estimates are always too low) and the first questions by the driver are to check if you know the town. If you dont sound like a local, then they will drive you through the longest route possible. And worst: you can do nothing about it. No way to report the licensed driver. Before uber it was like a license to steal.
In uber you can give 1 star - so the cheaters dont get any customers + you have some idea of price and route.
I wonder if we can make Yelp for taxis. Open the app, scan the plate, check the reviews, if they're bad, go to the next taxi. But I guess dodgy taxi drivers would just buy new license plate (e.g. for their "own" private cars) and swap them - ok in a lot of jurisdictions taxi plates look different to normal car plates.
Or the taxi driver can be made aware of the bad reviews and they'd have to do a deal with the app user, e.g. a fixed price with a 20% discount, for a fair review. (Rough idea, there are probably bigger issues when you're dealing with crooked drivers).
Or the taxi driver can be made aware of the bad reviews and they'd have to do a deal with the app user, e.g. a fixed price with a 20% discount, for a fair review. (Rough idea, there are probably bigger issues when you're dealing with crooked drivers).
In locations that have taxi stands like airports and large hotels, passengers are required to take the next taxi in line. You can't pick and choose.
I know it's normal for taxi drivers here to own their taxi, and therefore be the only one who drives it - I wonder how common that is throughout the rest of the world? Are there places where different drivers might drive the same cab in shifts?
It's not even normal in the US for medallioned taxis. 50% of the medallions are owned by one man and leased out to others who can loan the car out to others as well.
The medallions are owned (and leased), not the taxis. Furthermore, medallions only exist in a few cities. And I'm very curious about your "50%" number. 50% of the medallions in NYC? 50% of the medallions in the country? Dubious either way.
In some countries there are some private apps for Taxis that work just like Uber. I know of some stories of drivers who were banned after dodgy behaviour, or cancellations.
And because taxis are so heavily regulated it wasn't possible to compete with those bad taxis either. Regulation can cement an oligopoly.
> The irony of law abiding vigilante drivers beating up regulation abritraging drivers
Who's going to go file a complain? Uber running illegal taxis? Judges looking into this would be delighted for Uber to get a local presence in order for them to file a complain so the police could arrest a few of their executives...
Who's going to go file a complain? Uber running illegal taxis? Judges looking into this would be delighted for Uber to get a local presence in order for them to file a complain so the police could arrest a few of their executives...
Wouldn't they just send a lawyer. Even if they did send an executive there is zero chance of an arrest being made
> a lose-lose proposition for anybody but the most short-term minded.
"[I]n recent years the realisation has dawned that what’s good for Silicon Valley is not always good for everyone. What started with scrappy upstarts promising to make the world a better place has morphed into something more sinister: a pantheon of faceless multinationals who collectively dominate the world’s digital infrastructure, flouting regulations, avoiding taxes, and taking advantage of precarious labour to make a small number of people tremendously wealthy."
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley
"[I]n recent years the realisation has dawned that what’s good for Silicon Valley is not always good for everyone. What started with scrappy upstarts promising to make the world a better place has morphed into something more sinister: a pantheon of faceless multinationals who collectively dominate the world’s digital infrastructure, flouting regulations, avoiding taxes, and taking advantage of precarious labour to make a small number of people tremendously wealthy."
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-valley
It hasn't "morphed" into anything. It always was a way to easy money (while lying through their teeth), but way too many people are naive and couldn't see it earlier.
> It always was a way to easy money
Tell me again how Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Facebook were "easy money"
The devil personified in here, Mark Zuckerberg turned down the most "easy money" ever. 1 billion in cash for a couple years old company with an unproven business model, very few paying customers and no moat to speak of.
You gotta choose one, if extreme luck is involved in the process then it's not "easy" because it could have gone the other way as well, and the protagonists knew it too, but still decided to step into the arena.
We all know what happened to Digital Equipment which was the "easy money" company for the longest time.
Kodak? What happened to that "easy money printing machine"
Xerox anyone?
The reality is that you either die as a hero or live long enough to become the villan.
So now the villans are Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg. Jobs and Allen died so they are the dear heroes who we miss and things would be much better if they were here today.
Musk is the hero charging on his white horse right now, but unless he OD's on that pure cartel coke he snorts or blows up together with one of his rockets , I expect the tide to turn against him violently and suddenly.
Then it's the turn of the crypto guys such as Brian Armstrong and Vitalik to have their moment of glory, and on and on and on.
Tell me again how Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple and Facebook were "easy money"
The devil personified in here, Mark Zuckerberg turned down the most "easy money" ever. 1 billion in cash for a couple years old company with an unproven business model, very few paying customers and no moat to speak of.
You gotta choose one, if extreme luck is involved in the process then it's not "easy" because it could have gone the other way as well, and the protagonists knew it too, but still decided to step into the arena.
We all know what happened to Digital Equipment which was the "easy money" company for the longest time.
Kodak? What happened to that "easy money printing machine"
Xerox anyone?
The reality is that you either die as a hero or live long enough to become the villan.
So now the villans are Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg. Jobs and Allen died so they are the dear heroes who we miss and things would be much better if they were here today.
Musk is the hero charging on his white horse right now, but unless he OD's on that pure cartel coke he snorts or blows up together with one of his rockets , I expect the tide to turn against him violently and suddenly.
Then it's the turn of the crypto guys such as Brian Armstrong and Vitalik to have their moment of glory, and on and on and on.
>You gotta choose one, if extreme luck is involved in the process then it's not "easy" because it could have gone the other way as well, and the protagonists knew it too, but still decided to step into the arena.
No, you can make very easy money playing the lotto. All you have to do is give the gas station guy $2 and you're a billionaire. Just because you're the one who got lucky doesn't mean it's hard work or anything.
No, you can make very easy money playing the lotto. All you have to do is give the gas station guy $2 and you're a billionaire. Just because you're the one who got lucky doesn't mean it's hard work or anything.
The hard work is concentrated in the process of betting your life on a very unprobable outcome
Betting your life? Zuckerberg was at Harvard and I assume has well-off parents. FB could have been a total dud and I'm sure he would have done fine.
You got me curious, so from Wikipedia:
> Mark Elliot Zuckerberg was born in White Plains, New York, on May 14, 1984,[9] the son of psychiatrist Karen (née Kempner) and dentist Edward Zuckerberg.[10] He and his three sisters (Arielle, businesswoman Randi, and writer Donna) were raised in a Reform Jewish household[11][12] in Dobbs Ferry, New York.[13] His great-grandparents were Austrian, German, and Polish Jews.
Sounds like the typical HN contributor to be honest.
Anyway, I agree with your stated point that children of rich people are "merely" risking a few years of hard work and an opportunity cost of a few hundred thousand dollars when they found companies, and disagree with the possibly unintended insinuations that children of rich people can't work hard because they have a safety net, that facebook was an easy success, etc etc.
> Mark Elliot Zuckerberg was born in White Plains, New York, on May 14, 1984,[9] the son of psychiatrist Karen (née Kempner) and dentist Edward Zuckerberg.[10] He and his three sisters (Arielle, businesswoman Randi, and writer Donna) were raised in a Reform Jewish household[11][12] in Dobbs Ferry, New York.[13] His great-grandparents were Austrian, German, and Polish Jews.
Sounds like the typical HN contributor to be honest.
Anyway, I agree with your stated point that children of rich people are "merely" risking a few years of hard work and an opportunity cost of a few hundred thousand dollars when they found companies, and disagree with the possibly unintended insinuations that children of rich people can't work hard because they have a safety net, that facebook was an easy success, etc etc.
> I disagree with the possibly unintended insinuations that children of rich people can't work hard because they have a safety net, that facebook was an easy success, etc etc.
did you really just try to defend the children of billionaires?
did you really just try to defend the children of billionaires?
Just like informed people knew about why Gates was bad while he was still CEO of Microsoft, we all know most of the shenanigans that Musk is up to and it seems like that's already been folded in to his image.
> but way too many people are naive and couldn't see it earlier.
right, yeah, so others are dumb and you're enlightened?
> It hasn't "morphed" into anything. It always was a way to easy money (while lying through their teeth)
i don't get comments like yours. i'm sharing this quote because i like that whole article by Wendy Liu. Wendy agrees with you, and so do i. so why not just read it? your comment comes across know-it-all-y and bitter.
right, yeah, so others are dumb and you're enlightened?
> It hasn't "morphed" into anything. It always was a way to easy money (while lying through their teeth)
i don't get comments like yours. i'm sharing this quote because i like that whole article by Wendy Liu. Wendy agrees with you, and so do i. so why not just read it? your comment comes across know-it-all-y and bitter.
No breakfast either. Air"bnb" my ass.
It's been a scourge on my small town. We were down to 0.01% vacancy. People were renting porches in a desperate attempt to find a roof over their heads and not pay $2,000 for the porch.
It's been a scourge on my small town. We were down to 0.01% vacancy. People were renting porches in a desperate attempt to find a roof over their heads and not pay $2,000 for the porch.
There's some good and some bad out of Silicon Valley like with most things but you can always ban the bad and take advantage of the good.
Can you? The businesses that were actually illegal have legalized themselves, and the businesses that virtually everyone agrees do bad things have been getting "investigated" by Congress with no action for the past decade...
The prosocial case for regulatory arbitrage is that regulations can be good or bad but either way are usually sticky- so when they’re bad they’re bad for a long time. Societies, like all things, accumulate cruft over time and without arbitrage bad regulations won’t get reset until govt or economic collapse forces a major reset.
Arbitrage offers exposure to a world without some regulation and people can decide if they like that or not.
Arbitrage offers exposure to a world without some regulation and people can decide if they like that or not.
Right. Regulatory arbitrage aside, I think it’s hard to make the case that Uber was anything but a massive improvement over incumbent taxi companies.
It was there from the start, piracy was rampant in most companies that appear "serious" today, youtube is the most memorable.
It's a most cruel reminder of how bad regulations are.
I like the regulation where you can't physically murder your competitor.
Some regulations.
The ones passed in response to fat campaign donations. eg:anti municipal broadband, ever-ratcheting copyright laws
Sounds like you dont have a problem with regulations, but with political corruption.
Obviously, if we just get rid of regulations entirely, the corruption problem will be solved.
.. or maybe the carton of milk i buy can now kill me.
Obviously, if we just get rid of regulations entirely, the corruption problem will be solved.
.. or maybe the carton of milk i buy can now kill me.
The presence of corruption poisons the soil for well-constructed, effective regulation. Corruption fueled regulation thrives in those toxins.
So essentially 80% were not properly registered and paying taxes? I’m not that surprised, once a good double-digit number are cheating, cheating becomes the only viable way to remain competitive.
Years ago when Airbnb was picking up steam and I was in college I got a gig building a tool to automate cross-referencing Airbnb listings with housing records so the city could request the optional tourism tax.
What we found surprised all of them. A handful of people were listing sometimes over a dozen properties and avoiding the larger, but not optional, hotel tax. The 80% figure doesn’t surprise me much now just knowing how a few individuals can flood the short-term rental market in an area.
What we found surprised all of them. A handful of people were listing sometimes over a dozen properties and avoiding the larger, but not optional, hotel tax. The 80% figure doesn’t surprise me much now just knowing how a few individuals can flood the short-term rental market in an area.
A friend was visiting NYC and staying in my Brooklyn neighborhood at an Airbnb back in 2019. One night we were out and we ran into his Airbnb host at a bar. He was French and told me he had about a couple dozen units in the neighborhood all converted to Airbnb hotels, none of which he owned, all of them in some sort of agreement with the landlords. He said he had some in Paris as well and wanted to get up to 50 by the end of the year. He had zero insight into how this was completely problematic and was ruining life for the locals, all he cared about was making lots of money.
It's infuriating that we let companies like this be founded on completely illegal premises and continue operating.
It's infuriating that we let companies like this be founded on completely illegal premises and continue operating.
[deleted]
> how a few individuals can flood the short-term rental market in an area.
And, if it's like some cities (Dublin, Galway), they do this at the expense of the long-term rental market.
And, if it's like some cities (Dublin, Galway), they do this at the expense of the long-term rental market.
Yeah, but at least the Irish regulations are now involving Revenue, which means they'll be implemented.
A common strategy in Irish government is if there's a problem, and you don't really want to do anything but want to make it look like you're doing something, then you give it to local government to implement, as they won't have the resources to do it.
As a bonus, you get to point to the law, secure in the knowledge that it won't be implemented.
A common strategy in Irish government is if there's a problem, and you don't really want to do anything but want to make it look like you're doing something, then you give it to local government to implement, as they won't have the resources to do it.
As a bonus, you get to point to the law, secure in the knowledge that it won't be implemented.
And the housing market at large, since they also buy flats to turn them into short term rentals.
Decreasing house availability and upping prices, in turn making more money. Starters are usually the victims in this trend.
Developers were building apartments that were meant for the short-term rental market, too. Even the small amount of new housing that did get built were short-term rentals.
That is one of the given reasons the municipality pursues this. There is a housing crisis in the Netherlands, so that gives some context to this.
> There is a housing crisis in the Netherlands
Is there any western city where there isn't a housing crisis?
Is there any western city where there isn't a housing crisis?
Pretty much the entire midwest and southern US [0]. Granted, they benefit from basically having no geographical barriers to sprawling and building out ever more subdivisions and americans don't seem to mind suburbs.
[0]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/
[0]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/
Why wouldn't American's mind the burbs? In the midwest you get a huge really nice house with a garage, with as much storage and rooms as you could ever desire for hobbies and/or children, lots of land for pets and gardening on the cheap. Like half the cost of a run-down shack in a place like Boston cheap. All ~20 minutes from downtown where there is plenty of parking and a 10 minute walk to your suburb's satellite "downtown."
You won't make SV money but cost of living is unreal. I pull well over the 6 figure mark while getting to put ~60% of my take-home pay straight into savings and investments. And I'm not even close to frugal.
You won't make SV money but cost of living is unreal. I pull well over the 6 figure mark while getting to put ~60% of my take-home pay straight into savings and investments. And I'm not even close to frugal.
It depends on the suburb. Midwestern suburbs don't really have the downtown in the same way large cities do. IME they are either just glorified strip malls or touristy places. (TBH I'd really like to know how so many chain restaurants can remain in business... is it just a real estate investment?).
Once you account for some states have terrible weather, dysfunctional state governments, higher property taxes, etc. it might not make sense to trade a a net 20% change in overall CoL if it means you have significantly less to do. If your first thoughts are kids, pets, and gardening than sure the midwest is pretty good. If your primary concerns are career advancement, educated social/dating pool, variety in food and music, niche/luxury hobbies like skiing or surfing, etc. then your options for places to live becomes essentially drastically smaller and more competitive.
That said there are certain midwest cities that might strike a good balance.
Once you account for some states have terrible weather, dysfunctional state governments, higher property taxes, etc. it might not make sense to trade a a net 20% change in overall CoL if it means you have significantly less to do. If your first thoughts are kids, pets, and gardening than sure the midwest is pretty good. If your primary concerns are career advancement, educated social/dating pool, variety in food and music, niche/luxury hobbies like skiing or surfing, etc. then your options for places to live becomes essentially drastically smaller and more competitive.
That said there are certain midwest cities that might strike a good balance.
This whole COVID crisis has rekindled what I think many already knew. That neighbors and the overall community as a whole contribute to the value of the house. The crisis is basically over in the urban areas and the blue suburbs. Not so for rural. You can't change how other people think but you can choose to live near like minded people(which is what seems to be happening).
Today its dealing with the crisis, tomorrow its something else. I don't know how prevalent this thinking is but it could be on peoples minds as they look at property.
Today its dealing with the crisis, tomorrow its something else. I don't know how prevalent this thinking is but it could be on peoples minds as they look at property.
Don't forget about the rust belt. Our problem is no one wants to live here.
Finland is ok. A square meter in the capital area goes for about 1.5 months of net average wage, and about a monthly income in other provincial towns. A decent house can be had for ~10 years of single income
The benefits of not being a tourist destination
The benefits of not being a tourist destination
10 years considering the taxes still makes it pretty bad... Really why I don't want to live there. Other cities are somewhat more sane, but still should be cheaper.
Perhaps there's something deeply wrong with western housing systems?
I don't want to sound too radical, but this seems to be inextricably connected to capitalism. We won't ever solve it without structural changes.
What Amsterdam is doing is a decent start at least.
I don't want to sound too radical, but this seems to be inextricably connected to capitalism. We won't ever solve it without structural changes.
What Amsterdam is doing is a decent start at least.
It's old vs young, new vs established. For most homeowners, their home is their most valuable asset. It's just not possible to simultaneously maintain high property values and have affordable housing.
Given this, any "solution" to housing affordability is "solving" a problem that a sizable and highly influential segment of the population doesn't want solved. On the contrary, you see real government action whenever home prices fall.
Given this, any "solution" to housing affordability is "solving" a problem that a sizable and highly influential segment of the population doesn't want solved. On the contrary, you see real government action whenever home prices fall.
That's a good point. By some measures it isn't just the wealthy keeping the poor vulnerable; it's everyone who isn't poor. In this case, middle class voters.
In the US, our shortsightedness has begun threatening the lower-middle class. People with some cash in the bank are facing homelessness, due to a historic lack of housing. The housing shortage came following dozens of contributors including NIMBY, AirBnB, single-use zoning, tunnel-vision'd pols/voters, corp house buyers, etc. Pointing to a single factor delays solutions.
In the US, our shortsightedness has begun threatening the lower-middle class. People with some cash in the bank are facing homelessness, due to a historic lack of housing. The housing shortage came following dozens of contributors including NIMBY, AirBnB, single-use zoning, tunnel-vision'd pols/voters, corp house buyers, etc. Pointing to a single factor delays solutions.
It's not really multiple factors. There was only one. Restrictive zoning. That constrained supply. Everything else is just the various parties fighting over the now-insufficient housing supply.
Single use zoning lives due to NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision. The former stays forever while the latter is in play.
It's not just "NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision." Corporations that own houses don't want their value to decline. People renting properties out on AirBNB don't want their value to decline. They're just different categories of existing property owners who want property values to stay high or increase more.
The mechanism they all use for that is restrictive zoning. To win that you have to defeat them all. That's why it's hard to do.
Having failed to actually solve the problem, some people have had the idea to foist it onto someone else. Restrict who you can rent to, so people can't buy a property and use it for vacation rentals, on the theory that it will shift supply to long-term rentals. Then that makes the problem worse for short-term rentals, creating an incentive for regulatory arbitrage by AirBNB. Then long-term renters condemn AirBNB for thwarting their attempt to shift costs onto people who can't vote in the jurisdiction with the zoning problem.
All of that is bike shedding and friendly fire. The only real solution is to increase the housing supply.
The mechanism they all use for that is restrictive zoning. To win that you have to defeat them all. That's why it's hard to do.
Having failed to actually solve the problem, some people have had the idea to foist it onto someone else. Restrict who you can rent to, so people can't buy a property and use it for vacation rentals, on the theory that it will shift supply to long-term rentals. Then that makes the problem worse for short-term rentals, creating an incentive for regulatory arbitrage by AirBNB. Then long-term renters condemn AirBNB for thwarting their attempt to shift costs onto people who can't vote in the jurisdiction with the zoning problem.
All of that is bike shedding and friendly fire. The only real solution is to increase the housing supply.
> It's not just "NIMBY and voter/pol tunnel vision."
That would be why I made the point repeatedly that it isn't any one factor that got us here and cautioned against trying to frame it that way.
That would be why I made the point repeatedly that it isn't any one factor that got us here and cautioned against trying to frame it that way.
Strangely enough Americans demonize building more houses while in Germany it is the obvious solution.
And that's what I think OP was alluding to about it being "inextricably connected to capitalism". As long as we treat housing like an asset, we'll have this problem. And I don't see how there's any other way to treat housing under a capitalist system.
You mean an asset with a guaranteed return at the expense of late arrivals who must buy the asset from you. The vast majority of rent seeking is based around coercion. When people advocate for free markets nature seeps through. After all, coercion is completely natural. We don't have heaven on earth so why would a free market lead to the ultimate manifestation of heaven?
Get rid of the coercion and you get rid of the problems.
Get rid of the coercion and you get rid of the problems.
The problem isn't a result of treating housing as an asset, it's a structural regulatory problem. Housing is treated as an asset in Tokyo, but they don't have the same regulatory constraints on zoning, so they don't have outrageous housing prices.
Houses are assets.
Houses were the most commonly owned assets, so governments that increased the price of housing made most of the middle class richer, making those policies popular.
Re-formulating the above, making housing expensive is popular policy.
Doing that policy long enough causes new entrants into the market to not be able to afford housing. So yes, there is something wrong with our housing system. Part of that is that we marketed 'own your house' as a great way to earn money, and then made good on that promise at the expense of new entrants into the market.
Houses were the most commonly owned assets, so governments that increased the price of housing made most of the middle class richer, making those policies popular.
Re-formulating the above, making housing expensive is popular policy.
Doing that policy long enough causes new entrants into the market to not be able to afford housing. So yes, there is something wrong with our housing system. Part of that is that we marketed 'own your house' as a great way to earn money, and then made good on that promise at the expense of new entrants into the market.
The discussion here is centered around very desirable centralized locations. Out in the countryside things look very different. You can buy surprisingly cheap houses 2h outside of Berlin. Nobody does.
You also need an income to live.
Buy a house 40 years ago, pay your mortgage like a good workerbee
Finish paying mortgage, use the equity to buy a house 20 years ago and rent it out. Rent income > mortgage interest (and capital too)
House price increases, use equity to buy a few more houses.
Fast forward to today, you have 3 million in equity and 10k/month coming in after costs.
Finish paying mortgage, use the equity to buy a house 20 years ago and rent it out. Rent income > mortgage interest (and capital too)
House price increases, use equity to buy a few more houses.
Fast forward to today, you have 3 million in equity and 10k/month coming in after costs.
The US was the land of the free because there wasn't an existing land owner dynasty. Now there is.
Poor Galway. The rental situation there is utterly bananas; while buildings are lying vacant for years in the heart of the city.
Yes, the rest of the country is like this too, but for whatever reason Galway seems to have it extra bad; I know families that have split up over it.
Yes, the rest of the country is like this too, but for whatever reason Galway seems to have it extra bad; I know families that have split up over it.
Yeah, I know how bad it was when I was trying to find a spot in 2016; I can only imagine now. I actually dread trying to stay in Dublin after I finish this masters (I'm an international post-grad, so I was able to avail of UCD's scheme for on-campus living thankfully), but I almost dread going to Galway more (though ideally, that's where I'll be).
I moved away and returned to NYC twice between 2010 and 2020 - both times it was impossible to miss the impact AirBnB had on the residential rental supply. All over the city, wherever weekly demand was high enough (read, in any neighborhood remotely desirable), rental housing stock was lost to short-term rentals.
I've heard a lot of anecdotes suggesting that this has happened in many cities across the world. It certainly seemed to be a trend in New York for a while, which was/is already suffering with restricted supply, wild speculation, and immense demand driving up prices.
Pretty much the same happens in Firenze, Italy.
>I’m not that surprised, once a good double-digit number are cheating, cheating becomes the only viable way to remain competitive.
Is that not always the case with these American marketplace apps? Now that the property owners have to follow the rules, they have the same burden as the real hotels, but none of the economy of scale.
Same with all the places where they make Uber drivers be actual taxi drivers in actual taxis. Then all of a sudden they are competing directly against some very large, established players who have the market pretty well figured out already.
Is that not always the case with these American marketplace apps? Now that the property owners have to follow the rules, they have the same burden as the real hotels, but none of the economy of scale.
Same with all the places where they make Uber drivers be actual taxi drivers in actual taxis. Then all of a sudden they are competing directly against some very large, established players who have the market pretty well figured out already.
Honestly that is all I wanted from them. Taxi service with a well designed universal phone app with map routing and payment. I guess the established players figured out they didn't need a thing like that but it looks like they were proven wrong.
The only thing that "ride-sharing" companies proved was that they can do it cheaper by (a) bleeding capital and (b) evading regulator enforcement/taxes.
Note that it wasn’t just cheaper, but also better quality.
Initially, when they entered new markets and burned VC money to sustain the beachhead. Once their position on a given market was established, the prices went up and quality dropped like a stone.
The experience here is extremely location-dependent.
In some cities, pre-Uber taxi companies have upped their game and got themselves apps that'll give you a price and wait time both of which are actually right, that let you see the taxi on its way to you, tip included in the price, and let you pay by card.
In other cities, taxi operators provide shitty service where their card machine "doesn't work" and they "don't have any change" either.
In some cities, pre-Uber taxi companies have upped their game and got themselves apps that'll give you a price and wait time both of which are actually right, that let you see the taxi on its way to you, tip included in the price, and let you pay by card.
In other cities, taxi operators provide shitty service where their card machine "doesn't work" and they "don't have any change" either.
If an Uber is a better experience in any dimension (booking experience, car, driver, payment, …) that just means the Taxi company was a poor one. If it has a worse app than Uber then it’s not running its business properly. There are off the shelf taxi apps with booking, tracking, payments etc that any taxi company can license.
That goes along with "bleeding capital"
I've never had an Uber driver pretend their card machine is broken / take the long way around town / etc. Taxes used to -s-u-c-k-
I've had one take the long way. She didn't speak English, either. That was fun. Fortunately my sister speaks a bit of Spanish and was able to tell her she drove past the exit that her nav app clearly told her to take.
On the flipside, I've actually never had a taxi driver do any of those things to me, although they sure do lie through their teeth.
On the flipside, I've actually never had a taxi driver do any of those things to me, although they sure do lie through their teeth.
I agree with you what little I use them. But a lot of people got addicted to subsidized prices for day to day commuting use etc.
> The number is linked to an address, which makes it possible to check whether landlords are complying with municipal regulations regarding the maximum number of rental nights allowed.
I think the problems wasn‘t that they were not paying taxes, but that they operated private apartments as hotels without permission.
I think the problems wasn‘t that they were not paying taxes, but that they operated private apartments as hotels without permission.
There's a limit of 30 nights per year that private individuals can let out their homes. Before the mandatory registration, there was no way for the municipality to enforce or even check that people complied. Now that people can't let out their properties all year round it's not worth it so they're selling up or getting in long term renters.
Whole buildings were purposefully converted to illegal hotels. It's been a factor in rising property prices and housing shortages. Less tourism is one of the unexpected bonuses of COVID-19.
There's a whole class of society that won't think of decreased tourism as a good thing
Half-Croat, half-German from Munich here. To add some perspective - tourism is a double edged sword for popular destinations, and it's... worse than a serious heroin addiction for everyone, in the end.
On one side, many tourist destinations are happy to share the beauty of their landscape, the clean beaches, historical areas and the likes. And they make lots of money from it.
On the other side, it's extremely easy to delve into over-tourism, particularly if local politics are bought out / otherwise influenced by tourism profiteers (e.g. large hotel owners in the whole Balkan area, or breweries in the case of Munich's Oktoberfest). Then, you have problems like hoteliers building out a massive over-supply of hotels in areas that could also be used for regular housing (which in turn drives the housing market mad, such as it is in Munich), or hotels built too close to protected habitats, forest fire lines etc., or - inarguably the worst result - hordes of tourists swarming natural beauty spots for Instagram photos and ruining them by sheer mass (trampling over plants, disturbing animals with noise, relieving themselves, ...).
The "heroin" aspect comes into play for the really big destinations, the likes of Venice or Amsterdam. Over the last decades, tourism only knew one direction - upwards, and steadily. That meant that often local economies shifted towards tourism, sometimes completely... and then corona hit, and suddenly there was nothing to do, no reserves to weather the storm. Cold turkey, and no methadone (aka, government assistance for affected people and businesses) in way too many countries.
Edit: and actually, now after almost two years of pandemic, the situation is now worse. Many people who worked in tourism (and hospitality in general) had to move off to new employment, hotels and other industry closed down / got sold or otherwise repurposed. Again, the heroin comparison comes into play... as the infrastructure for tourism has shrunk, even lower numbers of tourists than a decade pre-Corona will now make the system fall over. Just look at the chaos at the Berlin airport BER (https://www.rbb24.de/politik/Flughafen-BER/BER-Aktuelles/av7...)... that's a forewarning of what is to come.
On one side, many tourist destinations are happy to share the beauty of their landscape, the clean beaches, historical areas and the likes. And they make lots of money from it.
On the other side, it's extremely easy to delve into over-tourism, particularly if local politics are bought out / otherwise influenced by tourism profiteers (e.g. large hotel owners in the whole Balkan area, or breweries in the case of Munich's Oktoberfest). Then, you have problems like hoteliers building out a massive over-supply of hotels in areas that could also be used for regular housing (which in turn drives the housing market mad, such as it is in Munich), or hotels built too close to protected habitats, forest fire lines etc., or - inarguably the worst result - hordes of tourists swarming natural beauty spots for Instagram photos and ruining them by sheer mass (trampling over plants, disturbing animals with noise, relieving themselves, ...).
The "heroin" aspect comes into play for the really big destinations, the likes of Venice or Amsterdam. Over the last decades, tourism only knew one direction - upwards, and steadily. That meant that often local economies shifted towards tourism, sometimes completely... and then corona hit, and suddenly there was nothing to do, no reserves to weather the storm. Cold turkey, and no methadone (aka, government assistance for affected people and businesses) in way too many countries.
Edit: and actually, now after almost two years of pandemic, the situation is now worse. Many people who worked in tourism (and hospitality in general) had to move off to new employment, hotels and other industry closed down / got sold or otherwise repurposed. Again, the heroin comparison comes into play... as the infrastructure for tourism has shrunk, even lower numbers of tourists than a decade pre-Corona will now make the system fall over. Just look at the chaos at the Berlin airport BER (https://www.rbb24.de/politik/Flughafen-BER/BER-Aktuelles/av7...)... that's a forewarning of what is to come.
I agree so much on the heroin aspect as I always made the same comparison between tourism and drugs.
Withdrawal syndrome is the only word I can find to describe the state Firenze was left in without tourists, during the initial lockdowns.
Withdrawal syndrome is the only word I can find to describe the state Firenze was left in without tourists, during the initial lockdowns.
I think the "heroin" comparison is needlessly dramatic.
"Over-tourism" as you describe it is just one possible symptom of excessive capitalism.
There are many nice spots with tourists, and many ways to ruin a place without any tourists when regulations are lax or poorly enforced, e.g. privatization and massive price increases in the crucial infrastructure, or reckless industrial projects.
And some things are just dumb traditions. Of course Oktoberfest sucks for the locals, but so does new year's eve in Berlin if you dislike continuous explosions until dawn and rockets flying horizontally. Tourism doesn't change the nature of these events much, just the scale.
Many other big economical sectors are also highly dependent on a small set of factors that could quickly change and cause ripple effects when they go down. This is not unique to tourism. Think e.g. the decline of Detroit.
"Over-tourism" as you describe it is just one possible symptom of excessive capitalism.
There are many nice spots with tourists, and many ways to ruin a place without any tourists when regulations are lax or poorly enforced, e.g. privatization and massive price increases in the crucial infrastructure, or reckless industrial projects.
And some things are just dumb traditions. Of course Oktoberfest sucks for the locals, but so does new year's eve in Berlin if you dislike continuous explosions until dawn and rockets flying horizontally. Tourism doesn't change the nature of these events much, just the scale.
Many other big economical sectors are also highly dependent on a small set of factors that could quickly change and cause ripple effects when they go down. This is not unique to tourism. Think e.g. the decline of Detroit.
> Of course Oktoberfest sucks for the locals
I don't care much about 2 weeks of drunkards. The problem is that the hotel supply is excessive as it's scaled to the peak demand times Oktoberfest and Bauma (construction fair) - the average occupancy is only 50% (https://www.welt.de/regionales/bayern/article172019924/Exper...).
Assuming a total of ~85k hotel rooms, that is room to house 40.000 people!
I don't care much about 2 weeks of drunkards. The problem is that the hotel supply is excessive as it's scaled to the peak demand times Oktoberfest and Bauma (construction fair) - the average occupancy is only 50% (https://www.welt.de/regionales/bayern/article172019924/Exper...).
Assuming a total of ~85k hotel rooms, that is room to house 40.000 people!
I realize this, even so, for Amsterdam it was a very much needed reprieve.
So you work hard to make your city to become one of the major tourist destinations in the world, who bring in a lot of money and help the local business flourish, and then need a reprieve from that?
Kinda counterproductive, no?
Kinda counterproductive, no?
Let me tell you. I was a poor boy growing in a tourist city in a latin american country. It was a small town, a bit sophisticated, so we got the cream of the tourism business: Upper middle class families.
Indeed, plenty of money flowed into the city. But, it was not distributed equaly. Social mobility was almost null, because tourism have lots of jobs, but most of them low skill jobs.
Then, there's this permanent humiliation of feeling like a servant in your home-town, because the local upper class makes very clear to you peons, that you're less important than the tourists, and they also think this very clearly.
Any business not related to tourism is basically discouraged, because it could "change the character of our lovely paradise".
Basically, unless you're rich and have business in tourism, tourism is not that great. Yeah, it puts food on the table when you're poor, but so other jobs that you could have if it were not for the damned tourists that make you a second class citizen in your own place of living.
Then, there's this permanent humiliation of feeling like a servant in your home-town, because the local upper class makes very clear to you peons, that you're less important than the tourists, and they also think this very clearly.
Any business not related to tourism is basically discouraged, because it could "change the character of our lovely paradise".
Basically, unless you're rich and have business in tourism, tourism is not that great. Yeah, it puts food on the table when you're poor, but so other jobs that you could have if it were not for the damned tourists that make you a second class citizen in your own place of living.
Then, there's this permanent humiliation of feeling like a servant in your home-town, because the local upper class makes very clear to you peons, that you're less important than the tourists, and they also think this very clearly.
We see this happen in the US, too, when a handful of billionaires buy up small town property and turn it into a resort town, driving out the locals. Some of my friends in that situation got "servant" level jobs as teenagers and really think that, somehow, serving the rich for $12/hr will lead to them becoming "one of them."
We see this happen in the US, too, when a handful of billionaires buy up small town property and turn it into a resort town, driving out the locals. Some of my friends in that situation got "servant" level jobs as teenagers and really think that, somehow, serving the rich for $12/hr will lead to them becoming "one of them."
Not to mention this whole attitude from rich tourists that don’t understand how can you not be grateful for the opportunity to carry their golf bags in the sun for a pittance.
No asshole, I would prefer working in the factory that couldn’t open because it would spoil the city for you assholes.
Entirely agreed, I also lived from tourism in a european city and it's miserable. Also, living near a tourist destination is awful just for the sheer amount of people going in and out. Massified tourism is really not that great as people make it out to be
It's rich getting richer at the cost of a whole bunch of individuals getting f*ked, hospitality staff is still being underpaid with 0hours contracts, and tenants are still being f*ked with increased housing prices, so COVID was quite good for lower classes, and I have no sympathy for the upper ones, the worst they get, the happier I am
> and I have no sympathy for the upper ones, the worst they get, the happier I am
That's the stance I fully despise. My country (Russia) has suffered tremendously (and still does, 100 years later) because people sharing such ideas took power, killing dozens of millions in the process.
That's the stance I fully despise. My country (Russia) has suffered tremendously (and still does, 100 years later) because people sharing such ideas took power, killing dozens of millions in the process.
The thing is that you guys from Russia have started thinking that you're the solo holder of human sufference, I come from Southern Italy with Mafia and absent government, where rich get richer, kids play on the street surrounded by heroin needles, all with few castles of rich people being the kings among the shit, so yeah I won't dare to tell you how entitled you are to your ideas, but probably if the people that took power had the feeling that doing what they did was fair, maybe had their reasons
The proper solution is not to rob the rich under the cheering applause of people like you, but to make poor people more wealthy.
Yeah it's a shame that no one thought about fighting inequality making workers wealthier so far, thank God there are people like you that enlighten us, you're also one of those who found that guns don't shot people but it's people that shot people, right?
If the solution is that then why the rich oppose the increase of minimum wage? What should be the solution to making workers wealthier without touching the bosses? The stock market? After all the crashes and wealth theft of funds? Do you guys ever connect the brain before typing?
If the solution is that then why the rich oppose the increase of minimum wage? What should be the solution to making workers wealthier without touching the bosses? The stock market? After all the crashes and wealth theft of funds? Do you guys ever connect the brain before typing?
Because despite what you think, people doing business aren't actually that rich. When you chant socialist crap like "bosses get rich by stealing wealth from workers" [1], you casually omit that many businesses are scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep workers employed (as in putting the food in the tables) in the first place. And that mandatory increasing workers' wages would result in their immediate termination from the job because it would no longer be sustainable, putting laid off workers on welfare.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28905425
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28905425
A lot of those jobs shouldn't exist in the first place.
Most of the time minimum wage increases just result in cost push inflation at the bottom of society. Yes, that means the middle class and above will have to pay more for services provided by minimum wage workers. The upper classes aren't hurting for money so they actually end up paying those wages anyway.
Most of the time minimum wage increases just result in cost push inflation at the bottom of society. Yes, that means the middle class and above will have to pay more for services provided by minimum wage workers. The upper classes aren't hurting for money so they actually end up paying those wages anyway.
Those businesses scraping the bottom of the barrel can disappear if their business model is weak, it's not that every one is supposed to be a business owner, so that they don't create unfair competition towards more capable business owners
[deleted]
"Maybe Lenin and Stalin had their reasons" is not a take I expected to see on HN today, but that's the lifecycle of all successful intellectually-oriented discussion forums I guess.
If you are not completely intellectually-stunted then you might actually know a bit about Russian history of the period. While few would excuse the later actions of Lenin or Stalin, the people who actually revolted against the Tsar had seriously justifiable reasons for doing so and given what I know about the time and place I would like to think that if I were in their place I would have joined them in putting the ruling class up against a wall and shooting them.
By the time of the Bolshevik coup, the Tsar had been in house arrest after the February Revolution for months. The February Revolution was justified. The Bolshevik coup was not.
And there was another battle for power between Bolsheviks and mensheviks that took place, but as i said a couple of replies below, is inequality fighting only possible under communism?
I doubt that introducing some regulations to introduce more fairness to the market can be honestly comparable to killing millions of people.
I was replying to the comment where a poster says this: "the worst they get the happier I am".
From this, we can logically conclude that poster would be most happy if rich people get plundered, deprived of their property and possessions, tortured, raped and killed, because these things are the worst that can happen to a person.
I can hardly interpret it as a call to introduce some fairness to the market.
From this, we can logically conclude that poster would be most happy if rich people get plundered, deprived of their property and possessions, tortured, raped and killed, because these things are the worst that can happen to a person.
I can hardly interpret it as a call to introduce some fairness to the market.
Well i guess there is nothing in the middle ground between having exploiting industries go out of business and have lords raped, tortured and killed
Wait, so these people are sacrificing themselves to protect the upper classes physical safety? Something doesn't add up... I personally wouldn't give a damn about their safety and I don't mean this in a way that I want to attack them, I mean it in the sense that I wouldn't let them exploit me.
You seem swell. Give those 0 hour contract workers an actual zero hours (and lower bargaining power due to lower demand), just to stick it to the upper class. Super!
It's giving people the pressure to obtain other means of survival, as we've seen, when the restaurants closed, the people in hospitality were able to have time to learn other things and changed careers, so that right now the whole industry can't find enough people. Good thing, so I am not sure what is your point, to have a sector which can only survive by exploiting workers because there is nothing else? There is something else, as we're seeing
And as far as I'm seeing, their bargaining power is only going up, workers can survive without their bosses, it's the bosses that get richer by thieving wealth from their workers
And as far as I'm seeing, their bargaining power is only going up, workers can survive without their bosses, it's the bosses that get richer by thieving wealth from their workers
Uh oh, "bosses stealing wealth from their workers" - now that's yet another despicable stance I despise. You really repeat word for word the slogans of soviet socialists who went on to plunder the country and kill off or expulse the majority it's most capable people. It's a shame how such poisonous views proliferate in modern society.
Or someone good at math just made some calculations and found out that if people at the top have a villa and a tesla and people at the bottom can't get to the end of the month without a side job, some wealth stealing is happening somewhere, it's not like "Oh they were saying the same things so they are not true and we should not do anything about it"
But we should stop thinking about the past and think about the current situation and how to fix it
I've read a bit and I think the problem with russia was not the communism, it is cultural, it sucked even before when the tsars were burning books and limiting the expression possibilities, including the fact that Russia and the eastern europe has never been through the renovation process of western europe and the liberal movements never took place there, I would hardly use russia as an example for anything, so please stop using russia as a background to don't add anything useful to principle exposed, we fought fascism which was on-par with the totalitarianism of tsarism and communism, and created a fair society that lasted for few decades, which now needs help in order to get better, if you guys decided to suppress a totalitarian government with a worse one, it's not the fault of ideas, it's just your culture and/or approach that is wrong
I'm sorry to come off as harsh but it's been all day that you wanted to use Russia as an example ignoring that you have had the same issues of lack of freedom, redistribution and fairness even before communism was even an idea
But we should stop thinking about the past and think about the current situation and how to fix it
I've read a bit and I think the problem with russia was not the communism, it is cultural, it sucked even before when the tsars were burning books and limiting the expression possibilities, including the fact that Russia and the eastern europe has never been through the renovation process of western europe and the liberal movements never took place there, I would hardly use russia as an example for anything, so please stop using russia as a background to don't add anything useful to principle exposed, we fought fascism which was on-par with the totalitarianism of tsarism and communism, and created a fair society that lasted for few decades, which now needs help in order to get better, if you guys decided to suppress a totalitarian government with a worse one, it's not the fault of ideas, it's just your culture and/or approach that is wrong
I'm sorry to come off as harsh but it's been all day that you wanted to use Russia as an example ignoring that you have had the same issues of lack of freedom, redistribution and fairness even before communism was even an idea
> I've read a bit and I think the problem with russia was not the communism
You've read the wrong bits. Before the WW1 Russia had a booming cultural and scientific spheres, was undergoing a rapid industrialization and had a lot of philosophical schools and movements. All was hampered by an ineffective and inadequate authoritarian rule, but the human capital was there and rapidly closing the gaps to leading economies. In fact, the seeds planted at that time allowed Russia to quickly rebuild and industrialize after the revolution, withstand Germany in WW2 and emerge as a leading world power on par with the USA, maintaining this status for many decades, doing all of this despite the ineffective socialistic rule.
Now, the reds came to power only after they have staged a successful coup late in 1917, toppling the interim government that was in power after the Tzar abdication. After the coup the Reds won the brutal civil war, chanting those very slogans you are repeating. I believe that if not for this unfortunate event, Russia would peacefully transition to democracy and by now would be one of the leading European economies, with twice the population it has now. The world could have learned a lesson from all of this, but the ideas of equality and justice are sounding so seductive to unlearned audience. If only they knew that equality means mediocrity.
Oh, and Tsars never burned books, that was what Nazis did.
You've read the wrong bits. Before the WW1 Russia had a booming cultural and scientific spheres, was undergoing a rapid industrialization and had a lot of philosophical schools and movements. All was hampered by an ineffective and inadequate authoritarian rule, but the human capital was there and rapidly closing the gaps to leading economies. In fact, the seeds planted at that time allowed Russia to quickly rebuild and industrialize after the revolution, withstand Germany in WW2 and emerge as a leading world power on par with the USA, maintaining this status for many decades, doing all of this despite the ineffective socialistic rule.
Now, the reds came to power only after they have staged a successful coup late in 1917, toppling the interim government that was in power after the Tzar abdication. After the coup the Reds won the brutal civil war, chanting those very slogans you are repeating. I believe that if not for this unfortunate event, Russia would peacefully transition to democracy and by now would be one of the leading European economies, with twice the population it has now. The world could have learned a lesson from all of this, but the ideas of equality and justice are sounding so seductive to unlearned audience. If only they knew that equality means mediocrity.
Oh, and Tsars never burned books, that was what Nazis did.
There’s no arguing with someone who’s a communist after 1991.
It’s morally and intellectually equivalent to neo-Nazism.
I suppose the Nazis were defeated in 1945, and the bulk of the Communists in 1991, so maybe we just need a few more decades for the cancer to die out.
It’s morally and intellectually equivalent to neo-Nazism.
I suppose the Nazis were defeated in 1945, and the bulk of the Communists in 1991, so maybe we just need a few more decades for the cancer to die out.
I would happily read sources that prove this as being false
Or at least the closest paragraph in terms of timeline with the birth of Soviet russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Censorship_(Russian_...
But even seeing at what's happening now, you have a rogue state, made of oligarchs, killing journalists, and I guess it's hardly communism to be blamed, I think happening in Russia was the worst thing that could've happened to the communist ideas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Censorship_(Russian_...
But even seeing at what's happening now, you have a rogue state, made of oligarchs, killing journalists, and I guess it's hardly communism to be blamed, I think happening in Russia was the worst thing that could've happened to the communist ideas
At some point the tourism became somewhat self-reinforcing and needed no more inputs from the city itself. However, when every evening you have an unending stream of tourists puking all over the streets, starting fights and bothering locals there is a point where the downsides for the 90% of people in the non-tourism sector become more important than the upsides for the 10% who make their money off tourists. We'll find something else to do for them.
Even as an expat who has been traveling and living abroad for years, I'd have to admit it's true that tourism doesn't necessarily remain a beneficial thing as tourist numbers get larger.
I'm generally not a fan of the word "sustainable" so I won't use the phrase "sustainable tourism", but it behooves cities (and countries) to find a balance between making themselves attractive to tourists and making sure that the costs of tourism don't exceed the benefits.
Tourism should allow tourists to experience a different place and everything that it's home to (the people, the food, the culture, etc.). When places fundamentally change in an effort to serve tourists, you basically have what I like to call "Disneyland syndrome". They become artificial destinations and the interests of the people who live there are sacrificed to create an optimal experience for the guests.
Airbnb is a parasite and one of the first things cities should look at when rethinking their tourism strategies.
I'm generally not a fan of the word "sustainable" so I won't use the phrase "sustainable tourism", but it behooves cities (and countries) to find a balance between making themselves attractive to tourists and making sure that the costs of tourism don't exceed the benefits.
Tourism should allow tourists to experience a different place and everything that it's home to (the people, the food, the culture, etc.). When places fundamentally change in an effort to serve tourists, you basically have what I like to call "Disneyland syndrome". They become artificial destinations and the interests of the people who live there are sacrificed to create an optimal experience for the guests.
Airbnb is a parasite and one of the first things cities should look at when rethinking their tourism strategies.
> tourism doesn't necessarily remain a beneficial thing as tourist numbers get larger
I always said this. Italy is addicted to tourism, an addiction that so far has only benefitted a few, while impacting negatively the majority of the population.
I always said this. Italy is addicted to tourism, an addiction that so far has only benefitted a few, while impacting negatively the majority of the population.
> Airbnb is a parasite and one of the first things cities should look at when rethinking their tourism strategies.
As someone who has traveled extensively, I agree entirely about "disneyland syndrome", and I'm one of those travelers that tries to avoid such things. I generally don't travel to places which are tourist destinations, in the first place. Regardless, my mode of travel is to try to meet people, stay long enough that I can live normally as a local, mostly buy groceries and cook, and work during the week only going out in the evenings and weekends.
AirBnB is essential to the way I travel, because it allows me to rent an apartment for a month that has normal apartment amenities like a basic kitchen. Many of the places I've visited have few or no hotels. One place I actually did stay in a hotel... the only hotel in the entire town, which also had the only restaurant in the entire town in it. In communities like this, someone offering you a room in their home or letting you rent their apartment while they are away is a critical pathway to being able to travel there in the first place and I don't think attracts the sort of people expecting a packaged experience.
From my perspective, AirBnB has enabled me and others like me to connect to the world and experience things that would be impossible otherwise, and at the same time has provided opportunities for those we interacted with along the way (I leveraged my network while traveling to help many of the people I met, connecting a budding craft brewer with resources to help them succeed, introducing a very good local photographer to english-language resources online to let them sell their photography, connecting someone who wanted to come to the US as an SWE with the right people so they could get hired and have their H1B sponsored, etc).
It's not really AirBnB, or rather what AirBnB is in essence, that's the issue, it's that it creates and enables a pathway for individuals to skirt location regulations to make a profit. Many of the places I visited had no regulations against short-term rentals because the idea that someone might do such a thing wasn't really on the mind of local regulators, but in key tourist destinations this is very much on the mind of local regulators, not the least of which because they can tax tourism directly via stays.
As someone who has traveled extensively, I agree entirely about "disneyland syndrome", and I'm one of those travelers that tries to avoid such things. I generally don't travel to places which are tourist destinations, in the first place. Regardless, my mode of travel is to try to meet people, stay long enough that I can live normally as a local, mostly buy groceries and cook, and work during the week only going out in the evenings and weekends.
AirBnB is essential to the way I travel, because it allows me to rent an apartment for a month that has normal apartment amenities like a basic kitchen. Many of the places I've visited have few or no hotels. One place I actually did stay in a hotel... the only hotel in the entire town, which also had the only restaurant in the entire town in it. In communities like this, someone offering you a room in their home or letting you rent their apartment while they are away is a critical pathway to being able to travel there in the first place and I don't think attracts the sort of people expecting a packaged experience.
From my perspective, AirBnB has enabled me and others like me to connect to the world and experience things that would be impossible otherwise, and at the same time has provided opportunities for those we interacted with along the way (I leveraged my network while traveling to help many of the people I met, connecting a budding craft brewer with resources to help them succeed, introducing a very good local photographer to english-language resources online to let them sell their photography, connecting someone who wanted to come to the US as an SWE with the right people so they could get hired and have their H1B sponsored, etc).
It's not really AirBnB, or rather what AirBnB is in essence, that's the issue, it's that it creates and enables a pathway for individuals to skirt location regulations to make a profit. Many of the places I visited had no regulations against short-term rentals because the idea that someone might do such a thing wasn't really on the mind of local regulators, but in key tourist destinations this is very much on the mind of local regulators, not the least of which because they can tax tourism directly via stays.
> Regardless, my mode of travel is to try to meet people, stay long enough that I can live normally as a local...
The thing is that as a tourist/traveler, it's not all about you (or me). You need to consider and be respectful of the impact your experience can have on the very locals you want to live like.
Your desire to have a kitchen is reasonably not more important than a local's desire to not see the apartment next to them converted into a illegal short-term rental where random strangers routinely come and go, or to be priced out of the market because it's more profitable for landlords to convert properties into illegal short-term rentals.
Incidentally, "living like a local" is about more than having a kitchen and this is in my opinion one of the most overused terms among the nomad set, but that said, if you really want to stay somewhere longer term and have a visa that lets you do so, you can try to rent a property legitimately. In fact, finding a legitimate rental, meeting a landlord, signing a lease, etc. is a perfect opportunity to "live like a local".
> Many of the places I've visited have few or no hotels. One place I actually did stay in a hotel... the only hotel in the entire town, which also had the only restaurant in the entire town in it. In communities like this, someone offering you a room in their home or letting you rent their apartment while they are away is a critical pathway to being able to travel there in the first place and I don't think attracts the sort of people expecting a packaged experience.
As you said, some places don't even have regulations because they don't see many tourists. It's one thing to show up in a town that's off the beaten track and be introduced to someone who will rent you a room for a few nights. It's another to have property owners interested in maximizing their earnings advertising their property to every Tom, Dick and Harry using the internet.
The thing is that as a tourist/traveler, it's not all about you (or me). You need to consider and be respectful of the impact your experience can have on the very locals you want to live like.
Your desire to have a kitchen is reasonably not more important than a local's desire to not see the apartment next to them converted into a illegal short-term rental where random strangers routinely come and go, or to be priced out of the market because it's more profitable for landlords to convert properties into illegal short-term rentals.
Incidentally, "living like a local" is about more than having a kitchen and this is in my opinion one of the most overused terms among the nomad set, but that said, if you really want to stay somewhere longer term and have a visa that lets you do so, you can try to rent a property legitimately. In fact, finding a legitimate rental, meeting a landlord, signing a lease, etc. is a perfect opportunity to "live like a local".
> Many of the places I've visited have few or no hotels. One place I actually did stay in a hotel... the only hotel in the entire town, which also had the only restaurant in the entire town in it. In communities like this, someone offering you a room in their home or letting you rent their apartment while they are away is a critical pathway to being able to travel there in the first place and I don't think attracts the sort of people expecting a packaged experience.
As you said, some places don't even have regulations because they don't see many tourists. It's one thing to show up in a town that's off the beaten track and be introduced to someone who will rent you a room for a few nights. It's another to have property owners interested in maximizing their earnings advertising their property to every Tom, Dick and Harry using the internet.
That's a fair point, I suppose while I am not Tom, Dick, or Harry, it is also a significant barrier to not know if you will have accommodations ahead of arrival, so for those off the beaten path places AirBnB is pretty important. FWIW, I have in fact signed leases and stayed in places with "legitimate" rentals (I think AirBnB is only illegitimate where it violates law, which is not everywhere). A minimum stay for me most places has been about a month, in some I've stayed over a year. It depends on what is allowed by the visa I am able to obtain and whether or not I find that there is reason to stay longer. I would consider what I do "medium-term" rather than short-term. I can't necessarily sign a 13-month lease everywhere I go, but I also am there much longer than the typical tourist which is between 3 and 7 days.
> I suppose while I am not Tom, Dick, or Harry...
How are you not Tom, Dick or Harry? When I first started traveling, I believed the "I'm different" thing too, but it's a bit hubristic. Tourists come in all shapes and sizes these days and there are a lot of location-independent folks ("nomads") who will move around every few weeks or months, not days.
In my experience, most "off the beaten path" places that have Airbnb listings almost always have at least one legitimate hotel, hostel, or homestay. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that most places that have Airbnbs aren't nearly as "off the beaten path" as you're telling yourself.
How are you not Tom, Dick or Harry? When I first started traveling, I believed the "I'm different" thing too, but it's a bit hubristic. Tourists come in all shapes and sizes these days and there are a lot of location-independent folks ("nomads") who will move around every few weeks or months, not days.
In my experience, most "off the beaten path" places that have Airbnb listings almost always have at least one legitimate hotel, hostel, or homestay. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that most places that have Airbnbs aren't nearly as "off the beaten path" as you're telling yourself.
> In my experience, most "off the beaten path" places that have Airbnb listings almost always have at least one legitimate hotel, hostel, or homestay. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that most places that have Airbnbs aren't nearly as "off the beaten path" as you're telling yourself.
I think that's kind of my whole point, to some degree. In the Age of the Internet, the world is more connected than it has ever been before, which means the path is less beaten by roadways than it is by wires and signals from wireless towers. If a place has any form of reasonable Internet connectivity, it's probably not really that far "off the beaten path", but that's also essential as a basis for any reasonable accommodation. So, no, I'm not visiting remote tribes in the Amazonian jungle, but I also wouldn't for many reasons including ethical considerations. Visiting a rural village in the countryside of a country not known for tourism, but that nevertheless has broadband Internet, is not as far off the beaten path, but it is still outside the awareness of typical tourists.
The world being more connected is generally a good thing, and I'd say a net good, but it's not all roses and cherries, and in fact there are many negative externalities to this connectivity as well. AirBnB provides people a way to arbitrage those externalities, but it's not wholly evil either, it also has positive attributes that can benefit both parties.
I think that's kind of my whole point, to some degree. In the Age of the Internet, the world is more connected than it has ever been before, which means the path is less beaten by roadways than it is by wires and signals from wireless towers. If a place has any form of reasonable Internet connectivity, it's probably not really that far "off the beaten path", but that's also essential as a basis for any reasonable accommodation. So, no, I'm not visiting remote tribes in the Amazonian jungle, but I also wouldn't for many reasons including ethical considerations. Visiting a rural village in the countryside of a country not known for tourism, but that nevertheless has broadband Internet, is not as far off the beaten path, but it is still outside the awareness of typical tourists.
The world being more connected is generally a good thing, and I'd say a net good, but it's not all roses and cherries, and in fact there are many negative externalities to this connectivity as well. AirBnB provides people a way to arbitrage those externalities, but it's not wholly evil either, it also has positive attributes that can benefit both parties.
> AirBnB provides people a way to arbitrage those externalities, but it's not wholly evil either, it also has positive attributes that can benefit both parties.
On the whole, Airbnb is a parasite. Those "off the beaten track" places we're talking about (where, again, legitimate hotels, hostels and homestays are typically available as well) almost certainly account for a very small part of Airbnb's listings, bookings and revenue.
The high-volume locations (think cities like Barcelona and Amsterdam) have experienced significant damage as a result of Airbnb.
On the whole, Airbnb is a parasite. Those "off the beaten track" places we're talking about (where, again, legitimate hotels, hostels and homestays are typically available as well) almost certainly account for a very small part of Airbnb's listings, bookings and revenue.
The high-volume locations (think cities like Barcelona and Amsterdam) have experienced significant damage as a result of Airbnb.
How could we possibly think of changing with the times?
Why wouldn't we want to continue have mobs of drunken British yobbos throwing up in the streets? (Note: I'm British for a little bit longer, so I can say such things.)
And we're seriously thinking of banning cruise ships here in Amsterdam - against, too much hassle, not enough revenue, lot of pollution. If that happens, they will raise the bed of the river IJ 4 meters and put a bike tunnel underneath it!
Why wouldn't we want to continue have mobs of drunken British yobbos throwing up in the streets? (Note: I'm British for a little bit longer, so I can say such things.)
And we're seriously thinking of banning cruise ships here in Amsterdam - against, too much hassle, not enough revenue, lot of pollution. If that happens, they will raise the bed of the river IJ 4 meters and put a bike tunnel underneath it!
Relatively speaking, Amsterdam doesn't make that much money from tourists. In a city center that is completely overcrowded, there is no net gain of having even more people.
Tourists are good for certain local business. Mostly low quality bars, restaurants, shops. Anything more upscale doesn't benefit from an endless stream of people who seem to have nothing better to do than just walk around.
Without tourists, buildings would quickly fill with residents. Bars, restaurants, and shops have to up their game to sell to local people.
Obviously, there is no reason to get rid of all tourists. But restricting the number of tourists to avoid an overcrowed center is a good idea.
Tourists are good for certain local business. Mostly low quality bars, restaurants, shops. Anything more upscale doesn't benefit from an endless stream of people who seem to have nothing better to do than just walk around.
Without tourists, buildings would quickly fill with residents. Bars, restaurants, and shops have to up their game to sell to local people.
Obviously, there is no reason to get rid of all tourists. But restricting the number of tourists to avoid an overcrowed center is a good idea.
The one thing they're really good for is the drug trade.
Visitors here are always surprised that the locals don't all seem to be weed/cocaine/whatever using junkies. Pointing out that the bulk of the tourists does not come to Amsterdam for the architecture but for the dope and the red-light district usually doesn't go down well because they are not that kind of tourist.
Visitors here are always surprised that the locals don't all seem to be weed/cocaine/whatever using junkies. Pointing out that the bulk of the tourists does not come to Amsterdam for the architecture but for the dope and the red-light district usually doesn't go down well because they are not that kind of tourist.
Tourism is for the largest part an extremely low value added activity, for which location is the most important factor. So the owner of the hotel makes millions and everybody else makes peanuts.
The very last thing we should work hard to achieve is turning cities into major tourist destinations.
The very last thing we should work hard to achieve is turning cities into major tourist destinations.
It's not about taxes, its about making it easier for the city to enforce the ban on short-term rentals.
It is definitely about both. And about returning the city to citizens who've been priced out by the tourism industry.
There's nothing wrong with being a cultural hot-ground, a travel destination, a mindshare icon... but turning a city into an intensive farming Disneyland is another thing.
There's nothing wrong with being a cultural hot-ground, a travel destination, a mindshare icon... but turning a city into an intensive farming Disneyland is another thing.
It was already obligated to register every time you rented.
For what I know, it was rarely done for very short stays as it was meant and organized around the concept of traditional seasonal rents (i.e. students, workers on short assignment dispatches, transitions between longer stable residential arrangements.
This is especially designed around the distributed hotel business model, for which the previous tracking and enforcement infrastructure was not qualified for.
This is especially designed around the distributed hotel business model, for which the previous tracking and enforcement infrastructure was not qualified for.
Nice twist. A country that is a tax heaven and enables a lot of business to avoid due taxes in other jurisdictions is now concerned that it can't get its own share of taxes.
We are a tax haven for foreign companies. Not for our own citizens. The point is to get more rich people inside the country manning the headquarters or at least hiring our financial services. We can then tax those rich people or financial service providers to still increase our income.
(Note I think we should not be as much of a tax haven)
(Note I think we should not be as much of a tax haven)
'Social housing' normally forbids subletting. It can get you evicted.
This varies a lot depending on location. In some places private landlords can not (legally) block sub-letting (except of course where it would cause other breaches, for instance health & safety wrt having too many people living in a property) and this carries over to "social housing" that is provided via public/private cooperation schemes.
(NOTE: I'm not intending to imply that it is the case here: I have no idea what the situation is in Amsterdam in this regard)
(NOTE: I'm not intending to imply that it is the case here: I have no idea what the situation is in Amsterdam in this regard)
> once a good double-digit number are cheating, cheating becomes the only viable way
Good point, but how little oversight does this country have of money being sent to peoples accounts from Airbnb etc? In my country (Norway), all transactions > 500 USD, (or multiple transactions from the same sender of lesser amounts), would register with the tax office. The receiver would have to disclose the source of these transactions to the tax office.
If money coming in or out of peoples accounts are governed by self-reporting, people must pay highly inaccurate taxes in the Netherlands.
Good point, but how little oversight does this country have of money being sent to peoples accounts from Airbnb etc? In my country (Norway), all transactions > 500 USD, (or multiple transactions from the same sender of lesser amounts), would register with the tax office. The receiver would have to disclose the source of these transactions to the tax office.
If money coming in or out of peoples accounts are governed by self-reporting, people must pay highly inaccurate taxes in the Netherlands.
Does this registration of transactions only happen only for air-bnb, or does it happen for all transactions?
If its the latter, that would be considered a massively over reaching collection drag-net here.
Besides that, this is a municipal tax, whereas the income information is only present at the national tax authority. Getting those to inter-operate is quite difficult. Especially since our national tax authority is known to be digitally incapable, and currently has some other much bigger issues to contend with.
If its the latter, that would be considered a massively over reaching collection drag-net here.
Besides that, this is a municipal tax, whereas the income information is only present at the national tax authority. Getting those to inter-operate is quite difficult. Especially since our national tax authority is known to be digitally incapable, and currently has some other much bigger issues to contend with.
That doesn’t happen in most countries.
Not completely. Most were dormant advertisements.
There is not a big tourist tax here; the biggest tax evasions for private people is probably on their income tax level, but that's not solved by this.
The direct issue it addresses is the take over of many tourists of certain neighborhoods meant for living.
The favorite hobby of habitants of Amsterdam is complaining about tourists.
The fight against Airbnb is a symbolic fight for the left winged parties in the city. Airbnb stands for big bad capitalistic wolf that makes the city unlivable for the normal people.
The issue this bigger fight addresses is that Amsterdam is slowly becoming unaffordable for normal people and especially families. Tourist rentals are partly to blame, but there are many more causes (low interest rate, rich parents, students, limited space and more)
So there are a bunch of restrictive legislations trying to deal with this, this is just one of them. Another one for instance is that since last year it's required to have a permit if you want to live in a house with more then 2 adults.
Already for years it was required to register every night you rented out your appartment. Airbnb however refused to open the books so there was no way to check it for the city. Probably this way Amsterdam can check every registered appartment that's publically listed without the help of Airbnb.
There is not a big tourist tax here; the biggest tax evasions for private people is probably on their income tax level, but that's not solved by this.
The direct issue it addresses is the take over of many tourists of certain neighborhoods meant for living.
The favorite hobby of habitants of Amsterdam is complaining about tourists.
The fight against Airbnb is a symbolic fight for the left winged parties in the city. Airbnb stands for big bad capitalistic wolf that makes the city unlivable for the normal people.
The issue this bigger fight addresses is that Amsterdam is slowly becoming unaffordable for normal people and especially families. Tourist rentals are partly to blame, but there are many more causes (low interest rate, rich parents, students, limited space and more)
So there are a bunch of restrictive legislations trying to deal with this, this is just one of them. Another one for instance is that since last year it's required to have a permit if you want to live in a house with more then 2 adults.
Already for years it was required to register every night you rented out your appartment. Airbnb however refused to open the books so there was no way to check it for the city. Probably this way Amsterdam can check every registered appartment that's publically listed without the help of Airbnb.
> There is not a big tourist tax here
Seriously? Numbers I just googled show like 10-20 million tourists vs a metro population of 2.5 million and you guys have some of the highest taxes in the world? Why are you taxing yourself so much when you can tax the tourists because it is pretty much the opposite in most tourist places in the US?
Seriously? Numbers I just googled show like 10-20 million tourists vs a metro population of 2.5 million and you guys have some of the highest taxes in the world? Why are you taxing yourself so much when you can tax the tourists because it is pretty much the opposite in most tourist places in the US?
> you guys have some of the highest taxes in the world?
I moved to Amsterdam from NYC, and honestly the taxes are about the same, with NY city and state taxes taken into account.
I moved to Amsterdam from NYC, and honestly the taxes are about the same, with NY city and state taxes taken into account.
Heavily depends on where you are on the income curve. Also, I think a more apt comparison would be a more touristy place like florida which has no income tax and relies more on tourism taxes.
As an example, a person making $100,000 would pay $22,754 in florida whereas someone in the netherlands making €86,176 would pay €32,989 in income taxes. Then you also need to factor in the 21% vat vs 6% sales tax. Also gas is $3.179 a gallon vs €7.158 a gallon. That's a pretty big tax difference!
As an example, a person making $100,000 would pay $22,754 in florida whereas someone in the netherlands making €86,176 would pay €32,989 in income taxes. Then you also need to factor in the 21% vat vs 6% sales tax. Also gas is $3.179 a gallon vs €7.158 a gallon. That's a pretty big tax difference!
>The fight against Airbnb is a symbolic fight for the left winged parties in the city.
That is just bullshit. The people complaining about their AirBnB neighbours are mostly in Zuid. Definitely in not Social housing.
Please don't start projecting left/right schoolyard tribe politics in an international context. You embarrass our country.
Usage of the phrase "left" and "right" is already dumb when Americans do it. But at least with their first past the pole democracy it is somewhat fitting.
We have many political parties that differ in more than one dimension. From immigration to taxation to gay rights.
Just go back to Dumpert already.
That is just bullshit. The people complaining about their AirBnB neighbours are mostly in Zuid. Definitely in not Social housing.
Please don't start projecting left/right schoolyard tribe politics in an international context. You embarrass our country.
Usage of the phrase "left" and "right" is already dumb when Americans do it. But at least with their first past the pole democracy it is somewhat fitting.
We have many political parties that differ in more than one dimension. From immigration to taxation to gay rights.
Just go back to Dumpert already.
GroenLinks has always been the most outspoken against Airbnb.
Complaints are probably heaviest in West and not South. But it doesn't matter where, the green left is the most dominant party under upper middle class, together with D66.
And indeed I wrote it in a way that complaining people led to the fight against Airbnb but I think there are many more reasons. GroenLinks ideology is definitely not caused by that to be sure.
And whether you agree with their policies or not. It's hard to argue against that they at least have made some symbolic political moves, for instance the removal of Iamsterdam because the I was to indivualistic.
And indeed I wrote it in a way that complaining people led to the fight against Airbnb but I think there are many more reasons. GroenLinks ideology is definitely not caused by that to be sure.
And whether you agree with their policies or not. It's hard to argue against that they at least have made some symbolic political moves, for instance the removal of Iamsterdam because the I was to indivualistic.
ralfn(1)
I agree using right vs left is dumb on occasions but OP has a point. Liberals (at least in US/Canada) used to be the one who would care about working middle class and their living conditions. In US and Canada all major North American cities(almost all of which I had left leaning politicians) the prices have exploded. You hear for example Canadian prime minister making it election pledge to make housing affordable, when under the same leadership housing prices have gone up 100% over 5yrs in many areas. So there is one of two things happening here - left is now out of touch with what’s really happening with middle class in North America who can’t afford a house without parents help and thus many choose not to start family etc or they cater to house owning rich upper middle class who have increasingly become their base.
It’s quite hard to follow your line of reasoning here. Unless you can explain how “leftist” policies have led to housing inflation, the fact prices have gone up doesn’t seem to contradict your PM pledging to reduce them.
Expansive immigration+highly regulated housing. Car-dependent city building which forces people who can't afford cars to live in the city. Small apartments and multi-home houses being regulated out of existence which push immigrants into windowless basements.
> Liberals (at least in US/Canada) used to be the one who would care about working middle class and their living conditions.
This confusion is understandable, but liberals never cared about the working middle class. Its just that in the US, the democratic party is a big tent of liberals, socialists and progressives, and the other side is a big tent of evangenicals, libertarians and conservative.
The ones that (claim to) care about the working class are the socialists. Liberalism comes from the French revolution, and is exported to the world through Amsterdam (appropiate in this topic!) and its value system is the foundation of modern day capitalism and enterpreneurship by free individuals (no matter how you pray or what you say) in a republic (every vote equal). So standard, you take it for granted.
You find the same disconnect between values in the other tent. Libertarians preaching small government for a republic ticket, even though every republican president has ended up spending more money than any president before.
One of the big downsides of first-past-the-pole is that a political world simplified to just two sides, doesn't do most people justice. Don't vote for the democrats if you want socialism. Don't vote for the republicans if you want libertarianism.
Evangelicals and progressives on the other hand, can do bussiness with the liberals and conservatives, since what they want isn't incompatible. Liberals hear progressives talk about 'inclusion' and they hear 'more customers' (hello, rich gay couples) or 'cheap labour' (hello, poor immigrants) and they get all wet in their stock portfolio.
Sidenote: If you ever wonder what America would look like when its just libertarians and socialists having to come together .. its called Burning Man, where autonomous libertarians feed socialist hippies, without liberal transactions or conservative judgment.
This confusion is understandable, but liberals never cared about the working middle class. Its just that in the US, the democratic party is a big tent of liberals, socialists and progressives, and the other side is a big tent of evangenicals, libertarians and conservative.
The ones that (claim to) care about the working class are the socialists. Liberalism comes from the French revolution, and is exported to the world through Amsterdam (appropiate in this topic!) and its value system is the foundation of modern day capitalism and enterpreneurship by free individuals (no matter how you pray or what you say) in a republic (every vote equal). So standard, you take it for granted.
You find the same disconnect between values in the other tent. Libertarians preaching small government for a republic ticket, even though every republican president has ended up spending more money than any president before.
One of the big downsides of first-past-the-pole is that a political world simplified to just two sides, doesn't do most people justice. Don't vote for the democrats if you want socialism. Don't vote for the republicans if you want libertarianism.
Evangelicals and progressives on the other hand, can do bussiness with the liberals and conservatives, since what they want isn't incompatible. Liberals hear progressives talk about 'inclusion' and they hear 'more customers' (hello, rich gay couples) or 'cheap labour' (hello, poor immigrants) and they get all wet in their stock portfolio.
Sidenote: If you ever wonder what America would look like when its just libertarians and socialists having to come together .. its called Burning Man, where autonomous libertarians feed socialist hippies, without liberal transactions or conservative judgment.
What evidence do you having for cheating being only way to remain competitive? What exactly do you mean by cheating?
If I don't pay taxes, I can pass some of those "savings" to the customer, thus beating the competition on price.
If you must compete, you must avoid taxes, thus cheat.
If you must compete, you must avoid taxes, thus cheat.
So the only way you can compete is by avoiding tax?
All other things being equal, yes.
Ceteris Paribus is a thing in economics. Basically what he means is that if you optimize everything in your business, all that remains is what is outside the bounds of the law, if you cheat, you'll win, basically forcing the other to cheat as well.
Also, all big businesses cheat tax, either by using creative licensing agreements between subsidiaries or by miscategorizing things. This isn't new.
Ceteris Paribus is a thing in economics. Basically what he means is that if you optimize everything in your business, all that remains is what is outside the bounds of the law, if you cheat, you'll win, basically forcing the other to cheat as well.
Also, all big businesses cheat tax, either by using creative licensing agreements between subsidiaries or by miscategorizing things. This isn't new.
Sorry, I competed absolutely fine when I had an Airbnb rented out for a year. I certainly paid my tax. I didn't cheat anyone.
Your proposition that to compete I must cheat doesn't stand up. Individuals chose airbnbs based on quite a few variables. The only time things are going to be equal is if the units for rent are identically positioned, decorated to same standard, have the same furniture and appliances.
Your proposition that to compete I must cheat doesn't stand up. Individuals chose airbnbs based on quite a few variables. The only time things are going to be equal is if the units for rent are identically positioned, decorated to same standard, have the same furniture and appliances.
>[...] The only time things are going to be equal is if the units for rent are identically positioned, decorated to same standard, have the same furniture and appliances
I agree, I mentioned this in my previous comment. >[...] Basically what he means is that if you optimize everything in your business [...]
Ceteris Paribus is a theoretical exercise or tool, if you will, but it is useful in trying to understand one of the variables involved in a calculation.
We're not disagreeing here, you don't have to cheat, nor should you, but if both of you had clone apartments one in front of the other but your neighbor doesn't pay tax, he's going to get picked first, every time.
I agree, I mentioned this in my previous comment. >[...] Basically what he means is that if you optimize everything in your business [...]
Ceteris Paribus is a theoretical exercise or tool, if you will, but it is useful in trying to understand one of the variables involved in a calculation.
We're not disagreeing here, you don't have to cheat, nor should you, but if both of you had clone apartments one in front of the other but your neighbor doesn't pay tax, he's going to get picked first, every time.
I'm a power user of Airbnb. I have never disliked a service as much that I pay continue to pay for other than LinkedIn. Both of these are because I have/had little choice. What it all comes down to is getting a shitting experience and paying a premium for it.
I have a 30+ day stay that had been booked close to 6 months in advanced canceled 7 days before my stay because the user sold their house. Airbnb said they would help me find a new comparable place. What they meant was they would send me a $200 gift card and say tough shit that all the comparable houses are booked already.
I hope they get regulated hard. Maybe someday they will start giving a shit about their users too.
I have a 30+ day stay that had been booked close to 6 months in advanced canceled 7 days before my stay because the user sold their house. Airbnb said they would help me find a new comparable place. What they meant was they would send me a $200 gift card and say tough shit that all the comparable houses are booked already.
I hope they get regulated hard. Maybe someday they will start giving a shit about their users too.
What? Kind of a illogical reaction to a tough situation right? What is AirBnb supposed to do if one of their hosts sells their house without notifying them and all similar listing are already booked? Would more compensation satisfy you? Honestly confused why you would want to punish a service you admit to using frequently.
I think the ethical failure here is on behalf of the house owners. They knew they were selling the house and could've told their customers that but I'm sure they didn't just in case the sale didn't go through.
Airbnb said they would help find a comparable place for us to stay. A comparable place was $2000+ more than the place we had booked initially (due to most places being booked 6 days before a holiday trip). They gave us a $200 coupon. Which meant we spent $1800 more on a place than we planed to.
I expected them to have some plan to ensure users don't get fucked if someone sells their house. Dozens of similar, but more expensive, places sat empty during that holiday. Airbnb could have given us a coupon for the difference between one of those and what we pair for our original place. That is what their initially made it sound like they were going to do. That is not what they did.
I'm a frequent user but not because I like them as a company. Because they are a monopoly.
I expected them to have some plan to ensure users don't get fucked if someone sells their house. Dozens of similar, but more expensive, places sat empty during that holiday. Airbnb could have given us a coupon for the difference between one of those and what we pair for our original place. That is what their initially made it sound like they were going to do. That is not what they did.
I'm a frequent user but not because I like them as a company. Because they are a monopoly.
> I expected them to have some plan to ensure users don't get fucked if someone sells their house.
Well, they probably banned the owner from the platform, easy-peasy;)
Well, they probably banned the owner from the platform, easy-peasy;)
AirBnb should put you up in a hotel at no extra charge. It's what real hotels do if the room you reserved isn't available.
Looking for long term stays on airbnb is an absolute minefield.
Yeah the owner should be forced to pay to put you up in a hotel of your choice if they optionally choose to cancel on short notice.
> I'm a power user of Airbnb. I have never disliked a service as much that I pay continue to pay for other than LinkedIn
As someone who has more or less been living out of Airbnbs for 5 years as as digital nomad I couldn't agree more. There is however a secret code language for talking to there support where you can generally get them to treat you fairly by being very selective in the language you use to describe situations to make sure you never fall outside the boundries of their insane policies.
Yeah the owner should be forced to pay to put you up in a hotel of your choice if they optionally choose to cancel on short notice.
> I'm a power user of Airbnb. I have never disliked a service as much that I pay continue to pay for other than LinkedIn
As someone who has more or less been living out of Airbnbs for 5 years as as digital nomad I couldn't agree more. There is however a secret code language for talking to there support where you can generally get them to treat you fairly by being very selective in the language you use to describe situations to make sure you never fall outside the boundries of their insane policies.
I need a crash course in this language. I was mostly hit with empty promises and brick walls when I would ask them to deliver.
Treat it as a court case, don't say any more than you have to and make the strongest case possible in every scenario. They are playing the same game on the other end so if you aren't very careful with your words and what you are arguing you will not get the outcomes you want.
It was really weird walking in Amsterdam during summer this time around. Generally for past few year, I had seen explosions of tourists doing a weekend tours. There used to be barely any foot space to walk near dam square and shopping streets. This time I just was able to be make an appoint for Anne Frank museum a day before and simply walk in without a queue. This is the conundrum of tourism. If you too much tourist in the city then if feels like a Disney land, if there too little then there is no business. I wouldn't just blame Airbnb for the tourist explosion but in general there are lot of cheaper hotels, hostels which attract not so nice tourists. This summer was great for me but not that good for the local businesses. Balancing this ecosystem is I think pretty hard. One of the things i was thinking how you could solve would be purpose make navigating throughout the city difficult. That forces people to stay longer, therefore limits people who come for short haul.
Aren't you forgetting the massive global pandemic that has surely impacted how, where, and when people vacation? Kinda hard to blame too much "disney-ification" on lack of tourists when tourism is being hit hard every where.
I don't think they were blaming the lack fo tourists on anything - just saying that it was nice to have fewer of them
Same in Berlin in 2020. What a strange feeling it was to walk through the city almost alone. A big disaster for hotels & business, but a small wonder for the local crowd.
Unless you live in mitte, which basically nobody does, there didn’t feel much difference to me.
It often seems to be the case that, in cities, the interests of businesses are opposed to the interests of residents.
It says advertisements in the article, but maybe a more clear term is 'listing'?
It expands on the various forms of advertising (eg, Expedia, TripAdvisor) and goes on to state that these sites are the majority places of advertising one’s airbnb.
Yes that confused me too.
It may flow through the days of newspapers for apartment rentals. A person wanted to sublet, to rent, an ad in the paper was the way.
And listings are ads, just with deferred payment (eg, once rented, then you kick a percent at the platform).
Another "common person" thinks of it differently than we do, thing?
And listings are ads, just with deferred payment (eg, once rented, then you kick a percent at the platform).
Another "common person" thinks of it differently than we do, thing?
Don't overthink it. The article was probably translated from Dutch, or done by a Dutch person, and there isn't direct equivalent for "listings" in Dutch.
If there isn't a distinction between ads and listings in some language, isn't that more evidence that both are actually the same thing?
Some cultures don't distinguish between green and blue and don't have a word for blue. That doesn't mean that blue is the same as green.
Another example is that in some languages they just have one word for ”leg” and ”foot”, and one for ”arm” and ”hand”. But obviously in English there’s a distinction.
[deleted]
That's interesting. So how would a Dutch person describe Google search results listings with ads in between?
Airbnb was amazing to start with, I stayed with some many interesting people and in interesting places. It's a shame that it's now so commoditised.
Lot's of experiences are amazing and wonderful when very few people do it, but they morph into something different when the masses come in. National parks. A rustic cafe in an old town. A picknick along a river bank. High signal internet forums. Venice. Zhangjiajie. Driving cars.
I don't know if any solution exists. It seems to me that the only way to preserve the original experience is via some sort of exclusiveness, which immediately provokes a backlash. Especially exclusions based on money.
I don't know if any solution exists. It seems to me that the only way to preserve the original experience is via some sort of exclusiveness, which immediately provokes a backlash. Especially exclusions based on money.
I don't think it's the number of people by itself. It's when it's becomes an established business that people have to start optimizing for low cost, max profit and fighting to get to the top of listings. Then the general niceness and interestingness goes away.
I mean yes, but for some things also the number of people by itself, surely? I can imagine having to queue to go up Mount Everest takes away some of the charm, for example.
Crowds, wait times, littering etc. Large numbers can ruin a lot of things.
Crowds, wait times, littering etc. Large numbers can ruin a lot of things.
In the case of CouchSurfing, it kept being genuine for a number of years despite and even thanks to the large user base. What destroyed the community is greed that lead to implementing incentives that go against what made the experience wonderful.
"Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded" - Yogi Bera
[deleted]
Air travel was great in the early days.
Air travel is still great if you fly first class, which if I remember correctly, is exactly as expensive as air travel was in the good old days.
Not since 9/11 , the security theatre is still very painful, even in first. I'm sure it's much more comfortable if you're flying general aviation, but that's still way more expensive than commercial ever was, even in the 60s
I don't have an arab complexion, but TSA has never been that much of a hassle for me. Is it really that bad for you? I just have to take my belt and shoes off and take my laptop out. There are lines, but it usually doesn't take me more than 20 minutes to get through.
I guess you got lucky by travelling domestic only in the US. 3 Hour lines at Heathrow passport control are not uncommon. US border agents can and will deny entry for to foreigners for any or no reason. Had a rifle raised and pointed at me while bag was searched in Sri Lanka.
And no liquids, and repeat this hassle at 50% of the airports you stopover (depending on how lazy they were when designing the “safe” zones and terminals)
Air travel via private jet is better than the early days though.
Yes, that’s what I said: general aviation == “private jets”
I was trying to make a tongue in cheek comment about life getting better for those at the top and worse for the middle.
Actually, I don't mind air travel being shitty, given its environmental impact.
Let those who damage the planet for fun or for profit suffer! >:)
Let those who damage the planet for fun or for profit suffer! >:)
Yeah, but from the perspective of people actually trying to live in these places it's a cancer on the city.
I personally know several people previously living in Amsterdam that left the city or parts of it simply because their day-to-day lives were getting disrupted by tourists taking over residential neighborhoods. They create a lot of noise, get drunk and high, vomit in the porches, leave trash everywhere etc.
A city should be for people that live there, not a theme park for those looking for a rush.
I personally know several people previously living in Amsterdam that left the city or parts of it simply because their day-to-day lives were getting disrupted by tourists taking over residential neighborhoods. They create a lot of noise, get drunk and high, vomit in the porches, leave trash everywhere etc.
A city should be for people that live there, not a theme park for those looking for a rush.
We have a friend who owns a single bungalow in a row of five in the Liberties area of Dublin. That's where Guinness is and a load of new distilleries, it's becoming a "cool" area.
The other four bungalows are owned by a single owner who rents them out as AirBnB's. This had made our friends life a nightmare. Stag and hen parties, teenagers booking them for parties, people returning home from an evening out drunk and trying to get in to her house by mistake. Also, the local parking has been messed up as well.
The worst thing is that when they are empty the street is really eerie. Also, the landlord keeps the keys to the houses in combination lock boxes bolted to the walls just outside the front door of each property. He'll give renters the code so they can retrieve the keys when they arrive. Local teenagers have been known to spend the time needed to crack the code and then let themselves in to the property and raise havoc.
She has reported the problems to the local council many times, but they just don't seem to care. Reports to AirBnB, unsurprisingly, go nowhere. When she has approached the owner to complain his response was to offer to buy her out, which is a bit cheeky as that has been her family home for three generations.
Being surrounded by so many AirBnBs can really have a negative effect on your life.
The other four bungalows are owned by a single owner who rents them out as AirBnB's. This had made our friends life a nightmare. Stag and hen parties, teenagers booking them for parties, people returning home from an evening out drunk and trying to get in to her house by mistake. Also, the local parking has been messed up as well.
The worst thing is that when they are empty the street is really eerie. Also, the landlord keeps the keys to the houses in combination lock boxes bolted to the walls just outside the front door of each property. He'll give renters the code so they can retrieve the keys when they arrive. Local teenagers have been known to spend the time needed to crack the code and then let themselves in to the property and raise havoc.
She has reported the problems to the local council many times, but they just don't seem to care. Reports to AirBnB, unsurprisingly, go nowhere. When she has approached the owner to complain his response was to offer to buy her out, which is a bit cheeky as that has been her family home for three generations.
Being surrounded by so many AirBnBs can really have a negative effect on your life.
For a while, I lived in an apartment complex that also rented out rooms on AirBnB. There was nothing in the lease allowing short-term subletting, and so I foolishly assumed that the complex avoided catering to short-term leases entirely. When you hear heavy stomping and noise directly above you, there's a huge difference in knowing who it is, and that they're likely to be receptive to stopping by the next day to ask for quiet. When it's a series of hotel guests, there's no reason for them to listen to you, nor would it have any impact on the next people to live there.
What I really liked in the early days is that there was more interaction with the host, because you often rented a room in their place or a part of the appartment, while they were still living there. Lot's of interesting conversation. Nowadays it's just business for a lot of hosts, they don't even bother welcoming you and put the key in a keysafe.
AirBnB and everything around it has mutated into something big and ugly since where it began. Seems like we need good old couch surfing forums back.
>AirBnB and everything around it has mutated into something big and ugly since where it began.
Now I am 100% out of the sphere of technology, but isn't skirting regulation to make money exactly how AirBnB got started?
Now I am 100% out of the sphere of technology, but isn't skirting regulation to make money exactly how AirBnB got started?
Purely anecdotal, but my earliest experiences with AirBnB were all staying as a guest in someone's home, which typically doesn't violate local regulations. You're allowed to have occasional guests crashing in your guest room in most residential areas.
Now, of course, AirBnB encourages fully investing in it as a landlord platform, where you rent and automate multiple whole properties and never meet the guests. That behavior lowers the quality of life in many tourist destinations today.
Now, of course, AirBnB encourages fully investing in it as a landlord platform, where you rent and automate multiple whole properties and never meet the guests. That behavior lowers the quality of life in many tourist destinations today.
It started as a convenience for people willing to let people they like crash at their place while they are away and get some pocket money for their own travel. Mostly unofficially, yes, and I feel no problem with this. But they turnt it into big business. Now whole buildings are built for AirBnB, professional landlords take mortgages to buy apartments just to let them at AirBnB, it's all over in the news, the prices are on par with hotels and the landlords seemingly don't care about any "face control" (as they normally would if it was about letting their actual home for a weekend) so even thugs can have the keys.
Amsterdam is trying hard to fight against tourism. They even plan to move the red light district and possibly demand dutch ID in coffeeshops. Nice to see that. 20M tourists per year for 1.2M city is too much.
Yeah, who cares about those who make a living off tourism. They should learn to code.
Fortunately these people had their chance to learn new ways to earning wages during the pandemic :)
The condescension and lack of humanity that some people here have is baffling.
And you know every single person on this site likes to use their FAANG salaries to see the word, so the hate for tourists is oddly self-referential.
not for me though, I quit travelling a long time ago after realizing that tourism is just another form of consumption that is essentially no different from purchasing useless stuff
how does noticing that a lot of people changed their occupation during the pandemic connect to lack of humanity? I am puzzled.
Well-paid software engineers sneering at the general public for not changing careers during a global pandemic, exhibits an obvious lack of humanity.
But I said exactly the opposite:
- a lot of people changed occupations
- it's good for them
No, that's not what you said.
Airbnb is great when traveling, but it made things more difficult for renters in cities with even a slightly moderate amount of tourism. Better houses with amenities like pools are almost completely out of the long-term rental market, or have insane prices.
For the professional urban renter this just means a less fancy rental, but this less fancy rental now is out of the reach for lower income people.
Good riddance
Yeah… who are the owners of a flat to decide what to do with it, eh?
There are tons of limitations to what you can do with your property. E.g. you can own land but can't build a house if the land is not zoned for it. Even the meaning of property has changed over the centuries. It's no longer acceptable to own a human being, which was a contested idea not too long ago. It's the people that make a society that decide what they want the rules to be. Good for the people of Amsterdam that they don't accept man made "realities" on what can or can't be done.
If it's no longer acceptable to own a human being, that's going to be a problem for the gimp training and service industry in Amsterdam.
https://www.nobleprog.nl/en/gimp/training/amsterdam
>Gimp Training in Amsterdam
>Online or onsite, instructor-led live Gimp training courses demonstrate through interactive discussion and hands-on practice the fundamentals and advanced topics of Gimp and Gimpshop.
>Gimp training is available as "online live training" or "onsite live training". Online live training (aka "remote live training") is carried out by way of an interactive, remote desktop. Onsite live Gimp training can be carried out locally on customer premises in Amsterdam or in NobleProg corporate training centers in Amsterdam.
https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g188590-d1491...
>Different and enjoyable, but expensive
>Travelled to the Supper Club with my girlfriend and we had a great time. Waiters in gimp suits, rubber gloves upon arrival and comfy beds to lounge on while we ate, created a unique experience.
https://www.nobleprog.nl/en/gimp/training/amsterdam
>Gimp Training in Amsterdam
>Online or onsite, instructor-led live Gimp training courses demonstrate through interactive discussion and hands-on practice the fundamentals and advanced topics of Gimp and Gimpshop.
>Gimp training is available as "online live training" or "onsite live training". Online live training (aka "remote live training") is carried out by way of an interactive, remote desktop. Onsite live Gimp training can be carried out locally on customer premises in Amsterdam or in NobleProg corporate training centers in Amsterdam.
https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g188590-d1491...
>Different and enjoyable, but expensive
>Travelled to the Supper Club with my girlfriend and we had a great time. Waiters in gimp suits, rubber gloves upon arrival and comfy beds to lounge on while we ate, created a unique experience.
I'm pretty sure the waiters are paid competitive rates and are free to seek other employment. So comparing them to literal slaves is disingenuous.
But they're working for people, doing what they might not want to on their own free time! Slavery!
I dislike how some diminish this term, with such frivolous complaints. Yes, surely the waiters were hobbled. Or beaten to death. Or starved, worked 18 hour days, etc.
Totally similar!
I dislike how some diminish this term, with such frivolous complaints. Yes, surely the waiters were hobbled. Or beaten to death. Or starved, worked 18 hour days, etc.
Totally similar!
I think those are two very different types of gimps.
They use AirBnD instead.
Mix ups like this are why I don't mention my experience with the GNU Image Manipulation Program[1] offline.
[1] https://www.gimp.org/
[1] https://www.gimp.org/
Yeah! If a landlord wants to put up tourists in leaky slum houses for €250 a night that should be their right! It's their own fault for trusting an online advert, right?
Hotels have rules, regulations and need to be inspected according to hotel rules in terms of safety, hygiene and price rules. Rentals have rules and regulations related to basic standards of living, pricing, and again, safety and hygiene.
Airbnb allowed landlords to rent out substandard temporary housing, skirting around laws covering both hotels and rentals as well as relevant taxes. In part, they are responsible for the housing crisis.
Hotels have rules, regulations and need to be inspected according to hotel rules in terms of safety, hygiene and price rules. Rentals have rules and regulations related to basic standards of living, pricing, and again, safety and hygiene.
Airbnb allowed landlords to rent out substandard temporary housing, skirting around laws covering both hotels and rentals as well as relevant taxes. In part, they are responsible for the housing crisis.
The owners still decide what to do with it. They just decided to stop listing their apartments because now it's very conspicuous that they are breaking the law by not paying taxes, having proper insurance, safety conditions, etc. for such an endeavor. The ones who were operating legally still advertise their listings.
Ownership isn't freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want, this is a first grade take on the topic.
Laws are voted for the interest of the community (ie. country) by elected officials (elected by the people), ownership, freedoms, &c. exist within these boundaries, or as a smart person put it a long time ago: "Obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is freedom". It's always a battle of individual gains vs collective good, if we wanted to live like egoists cavemen we wouldn't have build organised societies.
Laws are voted for the interest of the community (ie. country) by elected officials (elected by the people), ownership, freedoms, &c. exist within these boundaries, or as a smart person put it a long time ago: "Obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is freedom". It's always a battle of individual gains vs collective good, if we wanted to live like egoists cavemen we wouldn't have build organised societies.
I might have more sympathy for the flat owners if they:
- had proper insurance on their properties to protect the guests
- maintained the property according to the health and safety guidelines proscribed by law
- had a license for their business activity
- paid the appropriate taxes for this additional income
- had proper insurance on their properties to protect the guests
- maintained the property according to the health and safety guidelines proscribed by law
- had a license for their business activity
- paid the appropriate taxes for this additional income
The problem is that the locals cannot find housing themselves. Laws like this protect the common people of Amsterdam at the expense of the flat owners inalienable right to exploit them
Yea... who are the neighbors of those flats to decide to protest loud and rude tourists that disturb the piece and quiet of their homes, eh?
Exactly. Flat owners can't privatize their gains while their socialized their costs.
If a factory pollutes, we agreed that it should pay for the damage and control it. Why it is so difficult to understand that we just want the externalities from Airbnb to be addressed?
> Yeah… who are the owners of a flat to decide what to do with it, eh?
How do you spell "externalities"?
How do you spell "externalities"?
So you'd have no problem if your neighbours turned their flat into a brothel and a meth lab? Because that's the logical extension of your argument.
I'd have the exact same problem if the owner of the flat turned into a meth lab (or throwing loud parties or whatever) did pay all the taxes.
We have planning, zoning and safety laws for a reason. The owners of a flat can decide to do what they like within those parameters.
[deleted]
A flat owner is not an atomic actor. If you purchase a flat, it's under the implicit assumption that you or your family will be the only ones occupying it.
I live in Sweden and most "condo" associations (bostadsrätt) have rules regarding short-term hires and subletting. I imagine it is the same in the Netherlands.
I live in Sweden and most "condo" associations (bostadsrätt) have rules regarding short-term hires and subletting. I imagine it is the same in the Netherlands.
> I live in Sweden and most "condo" associations (bostadsrätt) have rules regarding short-term hires and subletting.
I don't know why you're using Sweden as a 'good' example of democratic control of Airbnb: the opposite is actually true, where the authorities are very well-disposed to people hiring-out their apartments, and see it as an opportunity to get more tourists visiting locations in Sweden[0] From the article in the citation:
"Politicians in Copenhagen want to introduce a maximum limit of 60 rental days per year via Airbnb - but Stockholm is choosing a different path and continues to welcome private rentals via the US giant. According to statistics from Airbnb, there are now over 3,600 listed homes actively offered as tourist accommodation in Stockholm."
In that article there are officials saying the same as you - that local restrictions put some sort of 'natural' limit on the number of Airbnb apartments - but the reality is that for people working here in Stockholm and trying to find an apartment to rent, the only option has now become Airbnb or the black-market in rented accommodation - effectively pricing normal people out of the market altogether.
As for these supposed restrictions on hiring-out apartments that are in the 'rulebook' of a house, it's perfectly easy to circumvent them. In my house in central Stockholm it's forbidden, but I often meet small groups of Italians, Spaniards or other obvious tourists coming and going in the communal areas of the house, and looking very sheepish at being seen - very obviously hiring an apartment illegally.
[0] In swedish: https://www.svd.se/stockholm-gar-emot-airbnb-trenden-inget-p...
I don't know why you're using Sweden as a 'good' example of democratic control of Airbnb: the opposite is actually true, where the authorities are very well-disposed to people hiring-out their apartments, and see it as an opportunity to get more tourists visiting locations in Sweden[0] From the article in the citation:
"Politicians in Copenhagen want to introduce a maximum limit of 60 rental days per year via Airbnb - but Stockholm is choosing a different path and continues to welcome private rentals via the US giant. According to statistics from Airbnb, there are now over 3,600 listed homes actively offered as tourist accommodation in Stockholm."
In that article there are officials saying the same as you - that local restrictions put some sort of 'natural' limit on the number of Airbnb apartments - but the reality is that for people working here in Stockholm and trying to find an apartment to rent, the only option has now become Airbnb or the black-market in rented accommodation - effectively pricing normal people out of the market altogether.
As for these supposed restrictions on hiring-out apartments that are in the 'rulebook' of a house, it's perfectly easy to circumvent them. In my house in central Stockholm it's forbidden, but I often meet small groups of Italians, Spaniards or other obvious tourists coming and going in the communal areas of the house, and looking very sheepish at being seen - very obviously hiring an apartment illegally.
[0] In swedish: https://www.svd.se/stockholm-gar-emot-airbnb-trenden-inget-p...
Maybe it is starting now?
https://www.thelocal.se/20210916/swedens-first-case-against-...
https://www.thelocal.se/20210916/swedens-first-case-against-...
If you purchase a flat, it's under the implicit assumption that you or your family will be the only ones occupying it
I also live in Sweden and that is a very Sweden specific assumption. Even just across the border in Norway that assumption doesn't hold.
Sweden on the whole is very anti small private landlords and have lots of laws making it basically impossible to make money by buying a few flats and renting them out, but that is also a pretty uniquely Swedish take on the property market.
I also live in Sweden and that is a very Sweden specific assumption. Even just across the border in Norway that assumption doesn't hold.
Sweden on the whole is very anti small private landlords and have lots of laws making it basically impossible to make money by buying a few flats and renting them out, but that is also a pretty uniquely Swedish take on the property market.
> Sweden on the whole is very anti small private landlords and have lots of laws making it basically impossible to make money by buying a few flats and renting them out, but that is also a pretty uniquely Swedish take on the property market.
This is an extremely idealized version of the real situation - at least in Stockholm. Here, the only real cap on the number of apartments being bought for (often illegal) hire, is the spiralling cost of real estate. Many of my colleagues rent their apartments on the black market - which is often the only way to get a home within the city.
Official rental apartments generally have a waiting-list of around 20 years within the city-limits, and even needing to commute from far out in the suburbs a newly-arrived person will probably need to rent on the black-market. This is a well-known and documented situation.
Airbnb has definitely made the situation much worse in Stockholm - the supposed '3600' apartments are actually far greater in number, as can be seen if one switches off location-permissions in your browser, and take a look at available rentals in the area.
This is an extremely idealized version of the real situation - at least in Stockholm. Here, the only real cap on the number of apartments being bought for (often illegal) hire, is the spiralling cost of real estate. Many of my colleagues rent their apartments on the black market - which is often the only way to get a home within the city.
Official rental apartments generally have a waiting-list of around 20 years within the city-limits, and even needing to commute from far out in the suburbs a newly-arrived person will probably need to rent on the black-market. This is a well-known and documented situation.
Airbnb has definitely made the situation much worse in Stockholm - the supposed '3600' apartments are actually far greater in number, as can be seen if one switches off location-permissions in your browser, and take a look at available rentals in the area.
You're of course right. I should have written that Swedish law is very anti small private landlords and that legally making money by buying a couple of flats and renting them out is basically impossible.
In fact when I moved back to Sweden after working abroad for a few years after University I spend the first 18 month living in a illegally rented flat, so I'm painfully aware of how the system works in real life.
In fact when I moved back to Sweden after working abroad for a few years after University I spend the first 18 month living in a illegally rented flat, so I'm painfully aware of how the system works in real life.
So how is there housing for people to rent? Does the government build and maintain all rental property?
You’d usually rent from someone owning an entire building. Usually a company but sometimes an individual.
No, there are private and council-owned landlords.
Can you explain more? That still sounds like you are able to "make money by buying a few flats and renting them out" but with extra steps.
Expanding on 'dawg, it's generally only profitable to rent if you're a company devoted only to renting, and the regulatory regime punishes the landlord with only a few units. This is because rents are not market-based, but instead are based on "use value" (bruksvärde). A 19th C apartment in the middle of the city can theoretically be worth "less" from a rental perspective than a newly built apartment in the suburbs.
Any annual rent increases are set via a form of collective bargaining, and if a landlord charges more, the renter is entitled to their money back.
The upshot of this is that it's much more profitable to buy a rental building and flip it to the renters via a bostadsrättsförening (a bit like a condo) or to only build to sell.
Any annual rent increases are set via a form of collective bargaining, and if a landlord charges more, the renter is entitled to their money back.
The upshot of this is that it's much more profitable to buy a rental building and flip it to the renters via a bostadsrättsförening (a bit like a condo) or to only build to sell.
No, the landlords in these cases own the whole building, not just a few flats. If you own the whole building then you can of course rent out the flats in that building. But if you just own a couple of flats in the building, then you generally cannot easily rent them out.
Thanks for expanding, I do admit writing from a parochial perspective.
In the UK at least, the expectation would be 50/50 that you are buying to let.
However, a six month minimum rental period is very different from having new neighbors every weekend.
However, a six month minimum rental period is very different from having new neighbors every weekend.
> it's under the implicit assumption that you or your family will be the only ones occupying it.
Says who? This is a rather bold assumption to make and does not have any connection with the reality in most of the world.
Says who? This is a rather bold assumption to make and does not have any connection with the reality in most of the world.
My comments were made from my experience as a renter and condo owner in Stockholm, Sweden. I did speculate that similar norms were present in the Netherlands, but I must confess I have not studied the issue deeply.
>If you purchase a flat, it's under the implicit assumption
There might be such implicit assumption somewhere, but it for sure isn't a general one.
I for one don't have any such expectations regarding the neighbours in my condo. (I don't live in Sweden/Netherlands though.)
There might be such implicit assumption somewhere, but it for sure isn't a general one.
I for one don't have any such expectations regarding the neighbours in my condo. (I don't live in Sweden/Netherlands though.)
I, for one, am renting, so if my neighbors expected my landlord would live at the flat with his family - then my wife, my newborn son and I are certainly failing to meet their implicit assumptions.
Someone needs to remove 80% of advertisements from "ruetir.com". Personally I don't mind a reasonable level of advertising on the web, but that site has gone way overboard. Looks like some kind of spam/scam site.
Booking.com is where the most desperate landlords and the real scumbags post. It's a cesspool. No wonder it's the only one where number of listings has increased given the circumstances.
Thats actually not true. Booking is based in Amsterdam and has been working closely with the city to ensure regulatory requirements are met. The "most desperate" landlords as you put it have all been approved by the city unlike the thousands on other platforms thats why Booking has been able to continue growing, they're actually way more selective on who they allow.
My experience two years ago was very different, I'm glad to hear they've cleaned up their act.
[deleted]
These companies are going to screw themselves by not policing the behavior of landlords. The government will do it for them, as evidenced by this move. I know VRBO does nothing to protect renters (unless they get raped/assaulted and need to head off bad PR). There needs to be transparency about who owns and is ultimately responsible for the property. VRBO currently insulates owners/operators from accountability to renters. I got ripped off for $2100 and had no recourse from VRBO. No way to file a complaint and it was clear once I went looking for support that it was 100% focused on helping owners/operators use their platform.
The current requirement to assure that a renter doesn't get ripped off is to use a credit card that will refund their money in the event the owner tries to rip them off. Good luck to the un-banked and working poor.
The current requirement to assure that a renter doesn't get ripped off is to use a credit card that will refund their money in the event the owner tries to rip them off. Good luck to the un-banked and working poor.
I've often thought that municipal regulations would be the best way to get rid of unsavory American corporations.
Another one that I'm not surprised has happened yet is a ~$5,000 dollar per day fine for an unattended cash register. That would get rid of CVS and Walgreens overnight.
Another one that I'm not surprised has happened yet is a ~$5,000 dollar per day fine for an unattended cash register. That would get rid of CVS and Walgreens overnight.
I’m sure i’m being dense here, but can you please explain the justification for fining a retailer for an unattended cash register? Also what’s unsavory about CVS/Walgreens?
It creates a theft nuisance, they attract shoplifters to nearby stores.
In that way you don't want a Walgreens or CVS in your neighborhood in the same way you don't want a 24 hour liquor store in your neighborhood.
In that way you don't want a Walgreens or CVS in your neighborhood in the same way you don't want a 24 hour liquor store in your neighborhood.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most theft at Walgreens/CVS isn't from the cash register being unattended, its from people just loading up and walking out with unpaid goods (which the local store security doesn't engage with due to fear of being sued)
There is no security.
I live in the north Dallas suburbs. About 75% of the time the entire non-pharmacy part of any CVS store near me is completely unattended. About half the time you walk into any one of them you'll hear the robot voice going off because someone just walked out with whatever they stole.
These stores are every bit as bad at imitating Amazon's fascination with automation as they are at scheduling and distributing COVID vaccines. For that matter, my proposal of a $5000/occurrence fine for unattended registers would also pre-eliminate one of those ridiculous unattended Amazon stores from popping up in your neighborhood...
The same goes for grocery chains. It's pretty obvious that the word has come down from corporate to store managers at Kroger and Albertsons to try and herd people into unattended checkouts. In the case of the latter, I've seen them have an attendant not work a register, but face-to-face try to "invite" people to the unattended checkout. All of this while a dozen registers sit closed.
These would all be very easily solved by a municipality imposing a minimum number of attendants per square foot of floor space and a fine for unattended registers.
I live in the north Dallas suburbs. About 75% of the time the entire non-pharmacy part of any CVS store near me is completely unattended. About half the time you walk into any one of them you'll hear the robot voice going off because someone just walked out with whatever they stole.
These stores are every bit as bad at imitating Amazon's fascination with automation as they are at scheduling and distributing COVID vaccines. For that matter, my proposal of a $5000/occurrence fine for unattended registers would also pre-eliminate one of those ridiculous unattended Amazon stores from popping up in your neighborhood...
The same goes for grocery chains. It's pretty obvious that the word has come down from corporate to store managers at Kroger and Albertsons to try and herd people into unattended checkouts. In the case of the latter, I've seen them have an attendant not work a register, but face-to-face try to "invite" people to the unattended checkout. All of this while a dozen registers sit closed.
These would all be very easily solved by a municipality imposing a minimum number of attendants per square foot of floor space and a fine for unattended registers.
Have you ever been to Walgreens with 10+ registers but just one attendee?
No. Walgreens only has two registers and one self register in the stores near me.
If I were a western city, I would simply build enough housing for residents and visitors.
I don't especially mind tourists in moderate numbers - after all, from time to time, I play the tourist myself. However, I live and work in Cambridge, and if we were to put what you suggest into practice the city would become an absolutely intolerable place to be for everyone.
AirBnb may or may not be a big problem here but, if it is, it's a subset of a bigger problem: buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices for buyers.
AirBnb may or may not be a big problem here but, if it is, it's a subset of a bigger problem: buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices for buyers.
I also live in (UK's) Cambridge. For now. Extensions to the transport network to reduce the car traffic are blocked by NIMBYs. Relocation of a sewage plant gets fought by NIMBYs. And every day, the university enjoys subtracting rent from companies with their iron hold over land they've owned for the centuries since their law mandated monopoly on higher education. It's a small city with a low verticality. Cambridge is not willing to accommodate growth.
It's certainly a frustratingly contradictory place.
On the one hand the city wants to encourage growth and innovation. On the other they do this by promoting the most tedious urban sprawl around the edges because of some arcane rule about buildings not being allowed that are taller than, is it Great St Mary's or Kings College Chapel? I forget, but it's too irritatingly stupid to think about. Oh, and the rent and business rates are an absolute outrage. How's anybody supposed to make any money[0]?
At the same time the infrastructure and public transport situation is awful. Infrastructure is rarely upgraded to keep pace with new developments and increases in population. The addition of Cambridge North station is welcome but it took far too long to get it done. Likewise the busway. And there are huge swathes of the city and county that aren't adequately served by any public transport which, of course, forces everybody into their cars and clogs the also inadequate road network.
From where I live, within certain restricted hours of the day (e.g., not after about 6.30pm), and not on Sundays, it's pretty easy to get a bus into the city centre and back again. It's not frequent enough, and it takes too damn long, but it can be done. The trouble comes if you want to go somewhere that isn't the city centre or somewhere in a direct line from here to there. Then you have to go into the city centre and wait however long for another bus. The last time I did this it took me about 2.5 hours to get from my place to a business located in Shelford - a total distance of something like 13 miles. Never again. I literally could have run it quicker.
I don't know what's gone on with the sewage plant, but I remember that moving it was being discussed at least as far back as 2002 and yet, 19 years later, here we still are. Not to labour the point but that's a quarter of a human lifetime. It clearly takes FAR TOO LONG to get things done that will improve the lives of people who are alive here, now, and today.
[0] On this point it annoys me intensely when I hear handwringing about vacant shops and business premises in the city centre where nobody addresses the obvious point: it's unreasonably expensive for businesses to be there.
On the one hand the city wants to encourage growth and innovation. On the other they do this by promoting the most tedious urban sprawl around the edges because of some arcane rule about buildings not being allowed that are taller than, is it Great St Mary's or Kings College Chapel? I forget, but it's too irritatingly stupid to think about. Oh, and the rent and business rates are an absolute outrage. How's anybody supposed to make any money[0]?
At the same time the infrastructure and public transport situation is awful. Infrastructure is rarely upgraded to keep pace with new developments and increases in population. The addition of Cambridge North station is welcome but it took far too long to get it done. Likewise the busway. And there are huge swathes of the city and county that aren't adequately served by any public transport which, of course, forces everybody into their cars and clogs the also inadequate road network.
From where I live, within certain restricted hours of the day (e.g., not after about 6.30pm), and not on Sundays, it's pretty easy to get a bus into the city centre and back again. It's not frequent enough, and it takes too damn long, but it can be done. The trouble comes if you want to go somewhere that isn't the city centre or somewhere in a direct line from here to there. Then you have to go into the city centre and wait however long for another bus. The last time I did this it took me about 2.5 hours to get from my place to a business located in Shelford - a total distance of something like 13 miles. Never again. I literally could have run it quicker.
I don't know what's gone on with the sewage plant, but I remember that moving it was being discussed at least as far back as 2002 and yet, 19 years later, here we still are. Not to labour the point but that's a quarter of a human lifetime. It clearly takes FAR TOO LONG to get things done that will improve the lives of people who are alive here, now, and today.
[0] On this point it annoys me intensely when I hear handwringing about vacant shops and business premises in the city centre where nobody addresses the obvious point: it's unreasonably expensive for businesses to be there.
> buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices.
I'm familiar with the argument that AirBnB reduces rental stock by devoting it to tourism. But I rarely encounter someone who is mad that more rental stock is being added.
Wouldn't you want rental prices to fall by increasing the availability of rental stock? Is a big gap between the cost of renting and the cost of owning a good thing?
I'm familiar with the argument that AirBnB reduces rental stock by devoting it to tourism. But I rarely encounter someone who is mad that more rental stock is being added.
Wouldn't you want rental prices to fall by increasing the availability of rental stock? Is a big gap between the cost of renting and the cost of owning a good thing?
In the UK housing market, the availability of cheap credit in the buy-to-let market has driven the cost of a home up to levels of unaffordability for the average person. It's made worse by the treatment of housing as an asset class, which means that the traditional solution (build more) has been shown to be ineffective. There is a whole class of people who buy house after house, and make a lot of money out of it, and it drives division in society, as buying is cheaper then renting.
The government has made some moves towards making BTL less profitable, but realistically this has only had the effect of discouraging new entrants, and driving the sector to a corporate model, which is even worse.
The government has made some moves towards making BTL less profitable, but realistically this has only had the effect of discouraging new entrants, and driving the sector to a corporate model, which is even worse.
> In the UK housing market, the availability of cheap credit in the buy-to-let market has driven the cost of a home up to levels of unaffordability for the average person.
Let's say you borrow at 0% interest and with zero down. And you take out an interest-only loan -- that's the loosest possible lending standard, right?
Still you would not pull the trigger and buy to let unless:
rent > interest + maintenance + cost of dealing with tenants.
That means that lax lending standards can at most drive the price of ownership up to the price of renting (but not really, since there are gaps between renters). At the same time, the more rental stock is added, the more rents fall, making housing cheaper in the area.
So I disagree that low mortgate rates can allow rental investment to create a bubble. Rental investment is the one place where you are guaranteed there isn't going to be a bubble, because they are approaching this as a cashflow decision.
Where you see bubbles is in people buying homes for themselves to occupy, so there is no sanity check to see if it pencils out our not in terms of rental cash flows.
So cheap credit can absolutely cause high prices as a result of owner-occupants, but not as a result of buy to let. When that happens, you see rental stock being taken out of the market and used for owner occupancy.
This is why nations with a large share of renters, like Germany, are also nations with the fewest housing bubbles. Housing bubbles are a phenomena for owner-occupants, because the value of living in a place is so subjective and can be devoid of actual incomes. Rent, on the other hand, must be paid with income.
Let's say you borrow at 0% interest and with zero down. And you take out an interest-only loan -- that's the loosest possible lending standard, right?
Still you would not pull the trigger and buy to let unless:
rent > interest + maintenance + cost of dealing with tenants.
That means that lax lending standards can at most drive the price of ownership up to the price of renting (but not really, since there are gaps between renters). At the same time, the more rental stock is added, the more rents fall, making housing cheaper in the area.
So I disagree that low mortgate rates can allow rental investment to create a bubble. Rental investment is the one place where you are guaranteed there isn't going to be a bubble, because they are approaching this as a cashflow decision.
Where you see bubbles is in people buying homes for themselves to occupy, so there is no sanity check to see if it pencils out our not in terms of rental cash flows.
So cheap credit can absolutely cause high prices as a result of owner-occupants, but not as a result of buy to let. When that happens, you see rental stock being taken out of the market and used for owner occupancy.
This is why nations with a large share of renters, like Germany, are also nations with the fewest housing bubbles. Housing bubbles are a phenomena for owner-occupants, because the value of living in a place is so subjective and can be devoid of actual incomes. Rent, on the other hand, must be paid with income.
This is the problem. Rental stock isn't being added. Private residences are being built that are then bought up by private landlords rather than people who actually want to live there. Private landlords then rent those properties out at a profit, because the yield is good enough for them to do so. This leaves fewer properties available to buy.
You can argue about whether buying property is a good model or not: in lots of countries in Europe it's not considered the norm, but I'm talking specifically about the UK where it is. Having more rental properties here is fine, but it's also not necessarily what people here want: many people want to buy their homes, and it's better that they do so in a market that isn't skewed by private landlords mopping up large quantities of property. In some parts of the country, though as I've already acknowledged it's unclear to me that this applies to Cambridge, AirBnb (and holiday homes in a more general sense) are a significant contributor to a lack of available property for long-term residents, or people who want to be long-term residents.
You can argue about whether buying property is a good model or not: in lots of countries in Europe it's not considered the norm, but I'm talking specifically about the UK where it is. Having more rental properties here is fine, but it's also not necessarily what people here want: many people want to buy their homes, and it's better that they do so in a market that isn't skewed by private landlords mopping up large quantities of property. In some parts of the country, though as I've already acknowledged it's unclear to me that this applies to Cambridge, AirBnb (and holiday homes in a more general sense) are a significant contributor to a lack of available property for long-term residents, or people who want to be long-term residents.
Sounds like a NIMBY
Sounds like somebody who doesn't know what NIMBY means. Seriously, go and look it up before you throw your cheap and uninformed shots around. They aren't welcome here (and, yes, I note that you're hiding behind a throwaway account to do it, so you're gutless as well as ignorant).
Perhaps I misjudged you then. Why do you think building more housing would make the city "an absolutely intolerable place to be for everyone"?
I really see no issues with buy to let if supply is sufficiently high. Sad reality is that building new units is too expensive. Realistically, real estate should not be very good investment. Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero.
> Realistically, real estate should not be very good investment.
Real estate isn't a particularly attractive investment, even in the best of times. Single family homes net around 8%, which is 2-4% less per year than what you would expect to get with an index fund. This is with leverage. It only becomes lucrative when you have a change in interest rates (lower mortgage payments leads to higher cash returns), demand (which is why AirBnB rentals are so popular), or regulations.
Of course, the occasional property will sell for well under market, but so will any other type of asset.
> Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero.
I think you're suggesting that real estate should have a lower annual return than other forms of investing, which I agree with and - in general - is what actually happens.
Real estate isn't a particularly attractive investment, even in the best of times. Single family homes net around 8%, which is 2-4% less per year than what you would expect to get with an index fund. This is with leverage. It only becomes lucrative when you have a change in interest rates (lower mortgage payments leads to higher cash returns), demand (which is why AirBnB rentals are so popular), or regulations.
Of course, the occasional property will sell for well under market, but so will any other type of asset.
> Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero.
I think you're suggesting that real estate should have a lower annual return than other forms of investing, which I agree with and - in general - is what actually happens.
There is actually less than a 1% difference and residential real estate is far far less volatile and that is for post 1950. Before 1950, real estate did better than equities [0].
[0] Table on page 15 from the pdf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584
[0] Table on page 15 from the pdf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584
Buy to let has no effect on housing prices as long as rental yields are low.
If the problem is tourism: ban tourists from the city. It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam
If the problem is tourism: ban tourists from the city. It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam
> It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam
Why doesn't it? Why should tourists get to say in the same type of places as locals, often at the expense of locals? To me, it makes perfect sense to ban short-term rentals but still let tourists stay in hotels and places meant for them, without taking up real estate that can be used for residences.
Why doesn't it? Why should tourists get to say in the same type of places as locals, often at the expense of locals? To me, it makes perfect sense to ban short-term rentals but still let tourists stay in hotels and places meant for them, without taking up real estate that can be used for residences.
Hotels are also real estate that could be used for residences.
The difference is that there are areas specifically zoned for hotels, for tourists, and they're included in city planning. What is happening with AirBnB, and short-term rentals like it, is that areas that weren't included for tourists in city planning are now being turned for that purpose, at the expense of the locals who they are planed/zoned for. It's two very different dynamics, and even comes into play with city planning, and AirBnB is completely ruining it, and thus ruining it for the locals. Hotels are already included in planning, and are not taking away places where the locals could live.
If you were in the city government of a large western city, you'd know there's a huge number of often conflicting demands of the citizenry. Most of them do not support building enough housing for all potential visitors. And while many are not explicitly opposed to increased housing for future residents, few will want that to happen close to where they live.
If you go directly against the wishes of most of the residents, you will not find yourself in the city government for very long. So I think this "simply build enough housing" is only a good solution in internet forum comments.
If you go directly against the wishes of most of the residents, you will not find yourself in the city government for very long. So I think this "simply build enough housing" is only a good solution in internet forum comments.
Yeah, then I believe you gotta read this [1] and this [2].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/buildi...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/may/30/readers-reply-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/buildi...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/may/30/readers-reply-...
No you cant, there isn't any room.
Yes there is. Amsterdam has about a quarter the population density of Paris
Yes, first raze everything to the ground so we can rebuild at a different density.
Amsterdam is closer in concept to a Flemish trade town than to an imperial core like the French capital.
And you think that means 3/4 of the plots are empty?
That's why we MADE room: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevoland
That’s very easy to say, much harder to do.
Also you still want to keep tourist concentrations low in certain areas to keep neighbourhoods liveable.
Also you still want to keep tourist concentrations low in certain areas to keep neighbourhoods liveable.
How about we have non-expensive hotels for visitors? Having the apartment next to you suddenly turn into a hotel with a rolving door of people who may or may not act like they're on holiday partying would drive most people nuts.
It's not just about the housing shortage but also the fact most people don't want to live in a hotel.
It's not just about the housing shortage but also the fact most people don't want to live in a hotel.
If you were Amsterdam, you'd realize that there is no space within the city limits to do so.
and as a city you would be unlikely to generate such brilliant comments
It's really sad how throughout the western world governments have come to rely on big tech monopolies to act as their enforcers instead of just enforcing the law using the normal machinery of the state.
Once the state becomes addicted to enforcement via big tech, it becomes reluctant to break up those big tech companies and promote competition.
Once the state becomes addicted to enforcement via big tech, it becomes reluctant to break up those big tech companies and promote competition.
I'd be surprised if a large % of those that no longer rent out on Airbnb can just leave their properties empty. I wonder whether those properties have shifted to other short-term rental platforms or whether they've gone back into long-term renting and what impact that the latter (would) have on the local rental market...
The 20% yoy housing price increases in NL have made it more than profitable to leave properties dormant. This is another factor in the housing crisis here, savings are taxed so wealthy individuals are all investing in property.
Only your primary residence gets to be tax-free in box 1 though? Any other real estate you own falls under box 3 and and is thus subject to the wealth tax ("vermogensbelasting").
See https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/... for details (Dutch page)
See https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/... for details (Dutch page)
Wealth tax is a very small fraction of the value of the property.
I think there’s a clear imbalance between stagnant money in a bank account versus rent-generating property - both being taxed as wealth tax. Hence, demand for real estate.
Not to mention that the Dutch wealth tax assumes that you are making a quite specific return on your capital, whether you actually do or not isn't something the tax man cares about.
With 'savings' as an asset class now a liability there is a huge flight of capital into real estate, which so far has been pretty resilient against this.
With 'savings' as an asset class now a liability there is a huge flight of capital into real estate, which so far has been pretty resilient against this.
You see a lot of millenials in particular complain about how they're basically screwed, financially. Houses are unaffordable, they have a mountain of debt, etc. Probably the only reason you don't hear this so much from Gen-Z yet is they're either too young or just in shock and denial about their position.
I'm truly sympathetic. I compare how I could live post-university and it's just not achievable now.
Here's the rub: if you support the view that housing is too expensive and people can't find places to live then you should be absolutely against AirBnB. At least, AirBnB of whole units. I'm completely fine with someone renting out rooms in their house or an additional unit on their property.
It is undeniable that AirBnB makes houses more expensive and reduces supply to buyers and renters.
Cities should be first and foremost for the people who live in them. AirBnB facilitates running illegal hotels. I'm also against people using residential property to park their money. We given real estate exemptions from reporting requirements that no other asset class has.
Landlords need to exist otherwise who will provide rental stock. Those landlords should be residents of those cities and not some faceless hedge fund.
I'm truly sympathetic. I compare how I could live post-university and it's just not achievable now.
Here's the rub: if you support the view that housing is too expensive and people can't find places to live then you should be absolutely against AirBnB. At least, AirBnB of whole units. I'm completely fine with someone renting out rooms in their house or an additional unit on their property.
It is undeniable that AirBnB makes houses more expensive and reduces supply to buyers and renters.
Cities should be first and foremost for the people who live in them. AirBnB facilitates running illegal hotels. I'm also against people using residential property to park their money. We given real estate exemptions from reporting requirements that no other asset class has.
Landlords need to exist otherwise who will provide rental stock. Those landlords should be residents of those cities and not some faceless hedge fund.
It is worth noting that according to a (Dutch language) article I read this morning, 90% of the listings that were removed had not been booked in the last year according to an Airbnb spokesperson.
Paywalled Dutch language link: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/airbnb-raakt-dr...
Paywalled Dutch language link: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/airbnb-raakt-dr...
Almost as if there was some global event preventing travel.
Non-paywalled Dutch language link: https://www.ad.nl/amsterdam/verhuurplatforms-door-registrati...
> Het gaat vooral om slapende advertenties van woningen die al een tijd niet verhuurd werden.
> It mainly concerns sleeping listings of units that have not been rented out for a while.
The number of listings is also expected to increase again if the number of tourists bounces back up after Covid.
Of course, the linked article also mentions this, albeit without claims of it being large part of the number:
> This may concern ‘dormant’ advertisements of which the tenant is no longer active. For example, because the corona pandemic has shut down tourism in Amsterdam for a long time.
> Het gaat vooral om slapende advertenties van woningen die al een tijd niet verhuurd werden.
> It mainly concerns sleeping listings of units that have not been rented out for a while.
The number of listings is also expected to increase again if the number of tourists bounces back up after Covid.
Of course, the linked article also mentions this, albeit without claims of it being large part of the number:
> This may concern ‘dormant’ advertisements of which the tenant is no longer active. For example, because the corona pandemic has shut down tourism in Amsterdam for a long time.
I find it interesting that the law has been in place since April, but only enforced as of October, which is presumably when all these listings were removed.
Pretty common practice, give folks a decent chance to comply and develop a history of not doing so before starting to enforce a regulation, especially when compliance is really low (80% of listings after half a year noncompliant... jeez)
If not AirBnb, then where the adds went? I doubt that the rental space would be left unused.
Hopefully to the long-term market.
As an expat living in the Netherlands I've seen this up close, but in most part it seems this is temporary. Many properties that were previously Airbnb-d were put up for rental, but only for short contracts of a year or two at most. This leads me to believe that many of those listings hope to return to Airbnb once tourism and the like picks up again.
That's what seems to have happened in Dublin too. Last August saw a doubling of long-term rentals, most in the areas most hard hit by AirBnB. I don't think it's lasted, given how bad things currently are here, sadly. Something really needs to be done to move them and keep them on the long-term market where they belong.
Yes, they are probably just waiting for the pandemics to end to go back to short term.
Good. Another scam american corporation folding on first legislation to benefit common people.
What makes it a scam?
Providing a service without following the laws. In this case, a hotel booking site without hotels.
It's like uber, a taxi service without drivers/cars.
It's like uber, a taxi service without drivers/cars.
> In this case, a hotel booking site without hotels.
It did not start out as a hotel booking service though.
It did not start out as a hotel booking service though.
How it started out is irrelevant, how it is today is what matters.
And didn't AirBnB start out in dubious circumstances too? I seem to recall reading something about it, but can't find it now.
Sometimes you need to break some laws to make progress that does not make it a scam. Sometimes the existing laws hurt consumers breaking such laws is good not bad.
This kind of thinking is less well received in Europe, which is why e.g. so many cities banned uber and only let them back in as a registered taxi app to contact registered taxi drivers charging regulated taxi prices, while a lot of US cities turned a blind eye.
Those same regulations also kept a higher floor of taxi quality, which helped avoid the stereotype that exists in the US of "regular taxis are always dirty and late", so there wasn't consumer outcry for their return like US cities which had tried banning them.
Those same regulations also kept a higher floor of taxi quality, which helped avoid the stereotype that exists in the US of "regular taxis are always dirty and late", so there wasn't consumer outcry for their return like US cities which had tried banning them.
Expect if I did it I would have huge penalties and real possibility of jail time for repeat offences
But because its USA megacorp it takes years before it gets slap on a wrist.
But because its USA megacorp it takes years before it gets slap on a wrist.
Stupid over-reaching bureaucracy.
Shame that local councils are once again meddling in things they have no business being in.
How does a democratically elected city council not "have business" regulating things like zoning? If they had wanted those houses to be operated as hotels, they would have been hotels. The citizens voted for a council that would impose regulation on AirBnb and they did. This is democracy working as intended.
Amsterdam is a city being overrun by tourists and that is something local councils should be able to control. Locals have difficulty to find homes as prices are raising to high levels.
https://nltimes.nl/2016/10/13/amsterdam-center-overrun-touri...
https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/amsterdam-is...
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/01/amsterdam-house-prices...
https://nltimes.nl/2016/10/13/amsterdam-center-overrun-touri...
https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/amsterdam-is...
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/01/amsterdam-house-prices...
I don't understand why houses should be excluded from the capitalistic process; If councils were doing their job and permitting sufficient housing construction, then high prices = more housing = everyone is happy.
I'm no expert on Amsterdam, but checking your last article mentions rent control; why would property developers bother building new housing when the returns are artificially deflated by government action? This is precisely the problem with regulations, they damage price signals. It would not at all surprise me if the government is in part causing all of these problems.
I will also note that housing being expensive in a large, popular city is basically the case the world over, and I suspect tourists are just an easy scapegoat to deflect blame from policy failure.
I'm no expert on Amsterdam, but checking your last article mentions rent control; why would property developers bother building new housing when the returns are artificially deflated by government action? This is precisely the problem with regulations, they damage price signals. It would not at all surprise me if the government is in part causing all of these problems.
I will also note that housing being expensive in a large, popular city is basically the case the world over, and I suspect tourists are just an easy scapegoat to deflect blame from policy failure.
> I suspect tourists are just an easy scapegoat to deflect blame from policy failure.
There was a policy failure, in allowing Airbnb to run huge unlicensed hotel business.
This policy is addressing that. They didn't stop Airbnb from operating, they just made sure that they operate more in line like other hotels.
This will in turn enable them to make sure that the tourist flow is sustainable, by raising or lowering tourist taxes on such rentals.
There was a policy failure, in allowing Airbnb to run huge unlicensed hotel business.
This policy is addressing that. They didn't stop Airbnb from operating, they just made sure that they operate more in line like other hotels.
This will in turn enable them to make sure that the tourist flow is sustainable, by raising or lowering tourist taxes on such rentals.
Because housing is a human right.
> I don't understand why houses should be excluded from the capitalistic process
Because it sucks and nothing should be included in it.
Because it sucks and nothing should be included in it.
Maybe, just maybe, high prices is instead because Amsterdam is building about half as much housing as it did 40 years ago, and significantly less than population growth.
Shame that private companies ignore legislation and disrupts communities by doing so.
I completely welcome this, the housing market is already very crowded here in Amsterdam. Investors buying houses just to rent them out to tourist all year round? No thanks, give people affordable homes first.
After being screwed over by Airbnb, I welcome the meddling.
What was your experience with Airbnb?
I needed a serviced apartment, and decided to use Airbnb because between Agoda and Airbnb, it was ever-so-slightly cheaper. When I searched it said the 100% refundable cancellation policy. So I made the booking, I adjusted the dates to 30 days, it didn't tell me that changing the date range to > 28 days changes the cancellation policy to an entirelly different policy that is dictated by the host.
So when the Taiwan border opened by 3 weeks before I was due to go to the serviced apartment, I couldn't cancel without losing 100% of the money as the 'new' cancellation policy was 100% non-refundable.
Contacting Airbnb they said there's a different policy if the booking is for more than 28 days, and so it's up to the host, so in the end the host reluctantly agreed to a 75% refund.
I could have paid 10% extra on Agoda for the same serviced apartment, and cancelled 24 hours before checking in and got 100% refund.
Airbnb letting hosts dictate cancellation policies, and not properly relaying information when paying, prevents me ever touching airbnb again.
So when the Taiwan border opened by 3 weeks before I was due to go to the serviced apartment, I couldn't cancel without losing 100% of the money as the 'new' cancellation policy was 100% non-refundable.
Contacting Airbnb they said there's a different policy if the booking is for more than 28 days, and so it's up to the host, so in the end the host reluctantly agreed to a 75% refund.
I could have paid 10% extra on Agoda for the same serviced apartment, and cancelled 24 hours before checking in and got 100% refund.
Airbnb letting hosts dictate cancellation policies, and not properly relaying information when paying, prevents me ever touching airbnb again.
So you agreed to a contract, didn't bother to read the fine print, this fired back and so your emotional response is schadenfreude... I believe you can do better than that
Hmmm.
During the search, it states that it’s 100% refundable upon cancellation.
Because I booked for 30 days it exceeds some apparent 28 day duration threshold where the cancellation policy is dictated by the host.
It only stated that it’s $0 refund on the cancellation screen.
So unsure how I read fine print where it’s stated1 way during booking but in reality there’s some hidden rule you find out when you cancel.
During the search, it states that it’s 100% refundable upon cancellation.
Because I booked for 30 days it exceeds some apparent 28 day duration threshold where the cancellation policy is dictated by the host.
It only stated that it’s $0 refund on the cancellation screen.
So unsure how I read fine print where it’s stated1 way during booking but in reality there’s some hidden rule you find out when you cancel.
It's not always available to the user. We recently did AirBNB for the first time, and nothing was said about the checkout process until after about a day before our stay.
In that process, we were expected to do (light) housework to help prepare the house for the next guests.
We did it, but it really left a negative feeling for us to have to do housework on vacation when it wasn't expected.
The owner left us a slightly negative review saying that perhaps we weren't the right kind of customers for AirBNB and that we'd be more comfortable with all the amenities of a hotel instead. True, but a nasty thing to leave in a review.
There were other problems with the house that prevented my wife from sleeping well there that the owner gave half-assed suggestions for, and left negative comments about in the review, too.
Obviously we won't be using AirBNB again and won't be recommending it.
Anyhow, with the lack of regulations, there's no guarantee that you know what you're actually signing up for on AirBNB, especially with policies stating that the cancellation policy changes to whatever the owner says. Had we known that, we probably wouldn't have stayed there at all. Luckily it didn't affect us like it did the other poster above.
In that process, we were expected to do (light) housework to help prepare the house for the next guests.
We did it, but it really left a negative feeling for us to have to do housework on vacation when it wasn't expected.
The owner left us a slightly negative review saying that perhaps we weren't the right kind of customers for AirBNB and that we'd be more comfortable with all the amenities of a hotel instead. True, but a nasty thing to leave in a review.
There were other problems with the house that prevented my wife from sleeping well there that the owner gave half-assed suggestions for, and left negative comments about in the review, too.
Obviously we won't be using AirBNB again and won't be recommending it.
Anyhow, with the lack of regulations, there's no guarantee that you know what you're actually signing up for on AirBNB, especially with policies stating that the cancellation policy changes to whatever the owner says. Had we known that, we probably wouldn't have stayed there at all. Luckily it didn't affect us like it did the other poster above.
This libertarian idealism does not work in practice. I mean look up what a local council does and what they 'meddle' in, then think about what would happen if they stopped 'meddling'.
I'm very familiar with exactly what local councils do in terms of urbanism and licensing, my entire family is involved directly in every stage of the construction business, from the initial architecture design, to the real estate sale.
I am telling you this because I want you to know that i have as close of an experience with local governments in regards to this subject matter as almost anyone can have.
From my experience, and the experience of my parents, uncles and grandparents i can assure you there is almost no place where you will find more corruption and needless bureaucracy as in local councils.
while there does indeed need to be some forms of regulation, say by outlining noise limits outside the properties, or by establishing emissions standards or light level restrictions, the vast, vast majority of restrictions and regulations are fundamentally senseless and exist primarily to make work for local council employees, and to enforce peoples views on what other can do with their property.
It is NIMBYism of the worst kind, and we would all be significantly better off if local councils had their powers castrated.
I am telling you this because I want you to know that i have as close of an experience with local governments in regards to this subject matter as almost anyone can have.
From my experience, and the experience of my parents, uncles and grandparents i can assure you there is almost no place where you will find more corruption and needless bureaucracy as in local councils.
while there does indeed need to be some forms of regulation, say by outlining noise limits outside the properties, or by establishing emissions standards or light level restrictions, the vast, vast majority of restrictions and regulations are fundamentally senseless and exist primarily to make work for local council employees, and to enforce peoples views on what other can do with their property.
It is NIMBYism of the worst kind, and we would all be significantly better off if local councils had their powers castrated.
While many of the efficiencies and attractions of re-inventing various businesses for the "digital age" seem genuine, their deployment within a fog of regulatory risk seems like a lose-lose proposition for anybody but the most short-term minded.