EU cities contemplate life with less Airbnb(politico.eu)
politico.eu
EU cities contemplate life with less Airbnb
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-european-capitals-cities-airbnb-short-term-rental-regulations-proposals/
138 コメント
Note that you miss part of problem that goes like "neighboring apartment is now hotel used for stag/hen parties with loud noises and vomit spread around, residents changing every two days and there is nothing that I can do with it".
> Of course if you have unbounded house construction policy, than tourism would not effect long-term housing prices much
(1) How long-term? If it will take 20 years for correction to complete then it severely harms people living there right now.
> Though I do wonder what percentage of Airbnbs actually have such a situation
AFAIK right now it is tiny unimportant part.
> Of course if you have unbounded house construction policy, than tourism would not effect long-term housing prices much
(1) How long-term? If it will take 20 years for correction to complete then it severely harms people living there right now.
> Though I do wonder what percentage of Airbnbs actually have such a situation
AFAIK right now it is tiny unimportant part.
Budapest's mayor was speaking about a problem, where short term rentals are taxed much lower in Hungary than long term rentals (because the tax law was written by/for hotel owners) which makes living in Budapest really hard for people. I'm not sure if the situation is the same in other countries, but this should be reversed to make the city livable again for people without a home.
This ^ people don't realize that airbnb is amazing for tourism in a city.
Amazing as in bringing in some money? Yes. Amazing as in overcrowding its center with souvenir booths, replacing grocery shops with party pubs, changing neighbors every week? Less so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtourism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtourism
> But such policy might be impossible in historical city centers such as Paris where buildings have historical value, and are probably one of the reasons for tourism in the first place.
How many percent of buildings have any significant historical value? Maybe 2%?
How many percent of buildings have any significant historical value? Maybe 2%?
Have specific historic value? Probably very few. But if they were replaced by generic high rises it would eliminate that Parisian feeling. They could let more people live in Venice by fixing the sinking and filling the canals, but that doesn't seem worth it.
> if they were replaced by generic high rises
That's a false dichotomy. New buildings could replace old buildings while maintaining the same style.
That's a false dichotomy. New buildings could replace old buildings while maintaining the same style.
>> if they were replaced by generic high rises
>That's a false dichotomy. New buildings could replace old buildings while maintaining the same style.
If it's the same style, than it will have similar or the same occupancy. More dense housing will simply look different. It will have to.
>That's a false dichotomy. New buildings could replace old buildings while maintaining the same style.
If it's the same style, than it will have similar or the same occupancy. More dense housing will simply look different. It will have to.
In Kraków Old Town? Around 99% (also it is UNESCO World Heritage Site and so on)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w_Old_Town
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.06160/19.93683
And "rebuild most of city due to tourism" has its own costs. I would prefer to simply have less of a tourism. For start remove nasty parts like stag/hen parties and people traveling here because alcohol is cheap, they are anyway providing only worst kind of jobs.
Maybe make city famous that being drunk, yelling and vomiting during night causes you to be stopped by police? And dumb parties of "rent a roofless car, drive around and be loud during middle of the night" type gets ruined?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w_Old_Town
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.06160/19.93683
And "rebuild most of city due to tourism" has its own costs. I would prefer to simply have less of a tourism. For start remove nasty parts like stag/hen parties and people traveling here because alcohol is cheap, they are anyway providing only worst kind of jobs.
Maybe make city famous that being drunk, yelling and vomiting during night causes you to be stopped by police? And dumb parties of "rent a roofless car, drive around and be loud during middle of the night" type gets ruined?
> Tourism can decrease housing supply, making is less affordable for long-term tenants.
I'm not sure what's the size of this effect though. I've heard people making comparisons like "1/3 of the apartments for rent at any given moment is short term"- which doesn't make sense, as it ignores the amount of properties rented for long term that are currently not on the market (while a short term rental is always on the market). What I think is that it makes owning a house more attractive, because the possibility of renting it out now and then lowers the cost of ownership. And thus it increases property values.
I'm not sure what's the size of this effect though. I've heard people making comparisons like "1/3 of the apartments for rent at any given moment is short term"- which doesn't make sense, as it ignores the amount of properties rented for long term that are currently not on the market (while a short term rental is always on the market). What I think is that it makes owning a house more attractive, because the possibility of renting it out now and then lowers the cost of ownership. And thus it increases property values.
The last few times I went to Europe, my Europe-based GF made arrangements for our accommodations, and it was always AirBNB that she booked without knowing that she was doing so; many European AirBNB hosts apparently also book through other sites with "hotel" in the name. Regardless, they were far superior in quality to the hotel rooms we had shared, superior also in location, and equal if not superior in price. That makes me wonder why hotels offer much smaller rooms with fewer amenities for the same price. AirBNB only works because of that discrepancy—if hotels gave better value for the same price, people would prefer hotels.
I once stayed in a AirBnB in one of the largest international cities in the world. Every room in the apartment was converted into an AirBnB rental, and the listing didn't make it apparent that this was the living arrangement at all.
There were 12+ people staying there in an apartment meant for 2 - 4 people at most. And that was just one apartment in the building, I assume more apartments were converted in a similar fashion because that's easy money.
They certainly weren't up to fire code. There weren't any emergency lights that would go on during an emergency and mark the fire exits, because there were no fire exits. In the event of a fire, panicked people would fall all over themselves in the dark as they all scrambled to the only exit, and the mass of people would most likely block it.
That's how they're able to give "better value" for the same price or less.
There were 12+ people staying there in an apartment meant for 2 - 4 people at most. And that was just one apartment in the building, I assume more apartments were converted in a similar fashion because that's easy money.
They certainly weren't up to fire code. There weren't any emergency lights that would go on during an emergency and mark the fire exits, because there were no fire exits. In the event of a fire, panicked people would fall all over themselves in the dark as they all scrambled to the only exit, and the mass of people would most likely block it.
That's how they're able to give "better value" for the same price or less.
Even smaller ones are not immune. I found myself in the same situation in Cambridge and Venice. Cambridge one was very, very sketchy.
Hotel prices have regulations included. Most airbnbs save on this. Some also mange to even avoid taxes, directly or by hiring illegal workers.
Zoning laws. Airbnb only works because it is a workaround for allowing “hotels” to be in non-commercial areas.
Not just zoning, AirBnBs (at least in the US, and I would assume the same is true elsewhere) often evade taxes, facility safety requirements, and other requirements generally applicable to commercial short-term rentals. As a result, on the things outside of those requirements, they can offer more at the same price.
I think zoning, especially single-use zoning, is much less common outside of the US. So I don't think it accounts for the global success of AirBnB.
This ^ I haven't booked a single hotel in the last 7 years. I only travel using airbnb because it's:
* cheaper
* better location
* feels more like home / feels cleaner
* more space
* kitchen
* cheaper
* better location
* feels more like home / feels cleaner
* more space
* kitchen
It's because Airbnb (ab)use the same kind of hole in the law as Uber does. Hotels have to follow more rules and can't build a room in random buildings that happen to be available but build lots of rooms in huge buildings. The problem isn't hotels but that Airbnb isn't seen as hotels as they should be. Luckily some cities are waking up and stopping the abuse.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted for this. AirBnb's valuation is basically extracted from society by pocketing the difference to anyone needing to follow regulations.
AirBnB does not create value, it extracts it from communities. It's not the kind of startup anyone should be cheering on
AirBnB does not create value, it extracts it from communities. It's not the kind of startup anyone should be cheering on
I agree that Airbnb is technically breaking the law with almost every rental, but increasing the supply of housing is a MAJOR benefit to society. Zoning laws and business building codes are completely unreasonable in most cases.
Increasing the supply of housing would be a major benefit, but Airbnb does not increase the supply of housing.
Unfortunately a lot of interests are also aligned against increasing the supply of housing, because steadily rising house prices ironically reduces the incentive to build (no rush to build if your return from sitting on the land until a suitable amount of time before you want to exit can get you the same ROI), while a lot of home owners don't get that it is often in their interest too to see prices slowly and steadily drop rather than increase (most of us would love to be able to trade up, and so would benefit from prices dropping at a rate similar to typical mortgage repayment, but a lot of people see their house as an investment and get excited when it goes up - for my part I look at the houses that were GBP 400k when my house was 200k, which are now 800k while my house is 400k, and wish the prices had halved instead of doubled).
Unfortunately a lot of interests are also aligned against increasing the supply of housing, because steadily rising house prices ironically reduces the incentive to build (no rush to build if your return from sitting on the land until a suitable amount of time before you want to exit can get you the same ROI), while a lot of home owners don't get that it is often in their interest too to see prices slowly and steadily drop rather than increase (most of us would love to be able to trade up, and so would benefit from prices dropping at a rate similar to typical mortgage repayment, but a lot of people see their house as an investment and get excited when it goes up - for my part I look at the houses that were GBP 400k when my house was 200k, which are now 800k while my house is 400k, and wish the prices had halved instead of doubled).
It does increase the supply of housing though. Housing that would otherwise could/would not be occupied is now available for rent.
What makes you think these properties could and would not be occupied? They often displace long term rental. And short term rental as an AirBnb is not 'housing' in the ordinary sense - nobody makes it their main residence.
> increasing the supply of housing is a MAJOR benefit to society
Airbnb is doing opposite, it displaces long-term rental by converting flats/apartments into hotels.
Airbnb is doing opposite, it displaces long-term rental by converting flats/apartments into hotels.
Superior location? That’s a new one for me. That’s what I always compromised on knowing that there was more space, cheaper etc. Lucky you!
This is not limited to cities and Airbnb, but it's a general trend that pushes cities and countries to figure out sustainability of tourism.
There are other examples like islands where the tourist attractions were destroyed because of lack of regulations - Maya Bay in Thailand or Boracay island in Philippines were closed for extended periods of time. Now they need to figure out how to prevent the situations that led to those closures from happening again, and imposing some limits on number of tourists is one of the possibilities.
There are other examples like islands where the tourist attractions were destroyed because of lack of regulations - Maya Bay in Thailand or Boracay island in Philippines were closed for extended periods of time. Now they need to figure out how to prevent the situations that led to those closures from happening again, and imposing some limits on number of tourists is one of the possibilities.
Imagine than 10 years ago we had couchsurfing trying to promote hosting visitors free of charge. Adding a fee per night triggered a change in the entire real estate market.
As I did a lot of couchsurfing in the past and used AirBnB from time to time, I think the goal of the platforms is somewhat different.
At couchsurfing the rating of a person was quite important, if you had a good rating (which meant you hosted people and let them have a good time), the chance of beeing accepted at other couches was higher. Thus, beeing a good host, maximised your chances to having extraordinary travel experiences yourself at other couchsurfing places. Additionally, couchsurfing was a place to find likeminded people and even create friendships.
At AirBnb your goal is to earn money and you don't care who is hosting you or who your guests are, as long as they follow the house rules.
At couchsurfing the rating of a person was quite important, if you had a good rating (which meant you hosted people and let them have a good time), the chance of beeing accepted at other couches was higher. Thus, beeing a good host, maximised your chances to having extraordinary travel experiences yourself at other couchsurfing places. Additionally, couchsurfing was a place to find likeminded people and even create friendships.
At AirBnb your goal is to earn money and you don't care who is hosting you or who your guests are, as long as they follow the house rules.
[deleted]
> The cities' mayors call for all rentals for a period under 30 days to be classed as touristic accommodation.
But they could also be used by business travelers.
But they could also be used by business travelers.
[deleted](1)
Airbnb should be simply banned.There's no way short term rental is any good for any city.
That's what hotels with different price ranges are for.
If it's regulated to the same standard as hotels or B&B's, I don't see a problem. But of course if they're regulated to that standard, most of them will disappear.
cities with strong tourism economy want to impose anti-tourism measures? how could this possibly play out
With more small hotels popping up to accommodate the demand?
AirBNB isn't essential, it's a middleman that provides booking and marketing. If the hammer came down and all they could do is list rentals that are actually legal, they'd wind up looking a lot like a better-designed Expedia. And honestly, that's probably fine.
AirBNB isn't essential, it's a middleman that provides booking and marketing. If the hammer came down and all they could do is list rentals that are actually legal, they'd wind up looking a lot like a better-designed Expedia. And honestly, that's probably fine.
Paris isn't making it's money from tourism, just like NY. There are other industries and inhabitants that the get displaced from the city if there's less rental property available.
Tourism isn't a particularly profitable industry anyway.
Tourism isn't a particularly profitable industry anyway.
EU cities will do absolutely anything to lower housing prices except build more housing. https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-will-do-anything-to-en...
Which cities are forbidding new housing? There are new buildings being built in my city all the time, while (and probably because) property prices are skyrocketing.
I would appreciate some references.
I would appreciate some references.
[deleted]
Airbnb has become synonymous with cheap tourism and overcrowded capitals, but is it correct to put the blame on it? Or it is simply cheap air travel and higher affluence (think of the entire eastern block of Europe, China, etc.) that brings so many people to the tourist hot spots? Is there any data to check what's Airbnb actual contribution?
There are a several studies published for different countries.
US: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benef...
US: https://hbr.org/2019/04/research-when-airbnb-listings-in-a-c...
Barcelona: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009411902...
Berlin: https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/study-airbn...
US: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benef...
US: https://hbr.org/2019/04/research-when-airbnb-listings-in-a-c...
Barcelona: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009411902...
Berlin: https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/study-airbn...
airbnb is synonymous with short term tourist rental, which if unregulated leads to dissolution of whole neighborhoods, which get converted into defacto hotels with total disregard of regulation and zoning. those places become unlivable for long term residents. there's a reason hotels are hotels and not just apartments in some building. note i've never said cheap: in my city, airbnbs and hotels are about the same price in similar locations.
if you think of all the ways you could make airbnb service better, you end up with a hotel, basically.
if you think of all the ways you could make airbnb service better, you end up with a hotel, basically.
Making travel less affordable... NIMBYISM creeps out of the shadows all over the place...
Has Airbnb driven down the cost of hostels? Anyone looking for cheap travel would be making a mistake if they're using Airbnb IME.
> Anyone looking for cheap travel would be making a mistake if they're using Airbnb IME.
Can you stay an entire month at a hostel? Usually not. It's also the end of the spectrum in terms of privacy, although there is couch surfing also.
Can you stay an entire month at a hostel? Usually not. It's also the end of the spectrum in terms of privacy, although there is couch surfing also.
You totally can. I have seen people living in them for months. To learn a language, or in party hostels to enjoy the summer. When I was young spending a few weeks in a hostel was my favorite way to spend time between house hunting in a new city.
You totally cannot in many hostels, maybe it's a thing in the US but I've been to many hostels in the world and some will limit your stay to a few days.
Just like AirBNB hosts.
At least there you have much more choices. I personally never ran into this doing airbnb.
> Can you stay an entire month at a hostel? Usually not
Yes, you can. You can probably negotiate a lower rate if you're staying that long or longer.
Yes, you can. You can probably negotiate a lower rate if you're staying that long or longer.
As I said elsewhere, it depends on the hostels, some will limit your stay to a few days.
Does it though? I’d assume that if supply is restricted. Demand goes down. Keeping prices relatively in check.
E.g. if Greece is the same price as south of France. People would just go to France.
E.g. if Greece is the same price as south of France. People would just go to France.
Perhaps. As someone who travels relatively infrequently, I'm pretty price insensitive. Like I'm traveling. Who cares if one of those locations is 20% cheaper? I wonder of many people are like me. I doubt that people are very price sensitive when visiting landmark cities.
> if supply is restricted. Demand goes down
Luxury goods can behave oddly, but in general demand is independent of supply. Restricting supply causes prices to rise, which lowers demand (at that high price). The underlying demand (at the lower price) remains constant.
Luxury goods can behave oddly, but in general demand is independent of supply. Restricting supply causes prices to rise, which lowers demand (at that high price). The underlying demand (at the lower price) remains constant.
I've never been to France or Greece, but are they comparable destinations for a vacation? I was under the impression that a vacation in Athens will be warm and sunny, whereas Paris will likely be cloudy.
[deleted]
They probably meant the Mediterranean part of France (Marseille, Montpellier, etc), but yeah, that comparison seems a bit odd to me too.
Hotels have to hold up hygiene, pay taxes and are regulated as to where and how many beds.
Now people bought lifing flats and converted them to girls.
Home > travel
Now people bought lifing flats and converted them to girls.
Home > travel
Prioritizing local vs temporary residents seems like the opposite of NIMBYism.
Travel less affordable to some, housing more affordable to others.
Yes please. I'm tired of not being able to afford living in my own city.
Is it really because of AirBnB?
Flats being rented on AirBnB is definitely competing with long term residents wishing to rent flats.
What is more visible as due to COVID this flats become available for a normal rental.
Obviously AirBnB, booking.com are only one of factors.
What is more visible as due to COVID this flats become available for a normal rental.
Obviously AirBnB, booking.com are only one of factors.
> Flats being rented on AirBnB is definitely competing with long term residents wishing to rent flats.
so are hotels, parking lots, malls, and everything else that take space right?
so are hotels, parking lots, malls, and everything else that take space right?
Partially yes, but AirBnB and similar caused widespread effect of flats and apartment buildings being turned into a hotels.
Residents of a city (via local government) may have some influence on hotel/mall/parking lot construction but this fails when anyone may buy apartments and starts hotel there anyway.
Residents of a city (via local government) may have some influence on hotel/mall/parking lot construction but this fails when anyone may buy apartments and starts hotel there anyway.
Those are regulated and taxed.
So? They still provide a downside. Regulation doesn’t make something instantly worth it.
So it makes sense for cities to limit and balance the down sides of short term rentals the same way they limit and balance the down sides of hotels, parking lots, and malls.
Partially AirBnB can be blamed. But one needs to also point to the elephant in the room, inflation.
Eurozone and US Central Bank policies are more-or-less "Cash is Trash" so markets react by throwing their savings at literally any asset that can, at least in theory, preserve value, including real estate.
Eurozone and US Central Bank policies are more-or-less "Cash is Trash" so markets react by throwing their savings at literally any asset that can, at least in theory, preserve value, including real estate.
I don't know, insofar as I don't have a view of who does what with each housing unit in the city, but I'd imagine to a large degree yes.
The apartment I'm renting would definitely be on AirBNB if it weren't for the pandemic. The owner told me that. Not a prime location, but access to multiple public transport options right across the street.
yes! unless you can call a 1 hour commute into the city still living in the same city.
yes to some places. there was an article on how all of the residential units in the town of Crested Butte, CO, are owned by people who don't line there and the units exist only for renting to tourists at this point.
Housing would become more affordable if you let people build more of it. Do EU city centers need to preserve every brick on every 400 year old horse shack?
Yes, that's what the AirBnB users are coming for... ;)
Whether you like it or not, the world is becoming more connected and global. If you don't like that, don't pretend that it's one company ruining the world for you. Just admit that you don't want to share your neighborhood with tourists.
I am happily admitting that! Though strictly speaking I have no problem with tourists (except hen parties/stag parties), I have problem with city spending more effort on keeping tourists happy than residents happy.
And for example refusing to fix sidewalks and having funds to advertise city as a tourism destination.
While hotels take over local cinemas, shops, apartments, restaurants and other objects used by local residents.
Airbnb and similar is making it more problematic - as something that was constructed as apartments may easily turn into a de facto hotel.
What is especially irritating for real residents in the same building.
And for example refusing to fix sidewalks and having funds to advertise city as a tourism destination.
While hotels take over local cinemas, shops, apartments, restaurants and other objects used by local residents.
Airbnb and similar is making it more problematic - as something that was constructed as apartments may easily turn into a de facto hotel.
What is especially irritating for real residents in the same building.
AirBnB is the single biggest external lever on - already short supplied - residential living in most Western cities with tourism, wouldn't you agree?
In a world with 10 years of pretty much global Quantitative Easing policies it's certainly not one company driving the trend here, but if it's a single company who happens to have an outsized negative effect for local residents with quasi institutional, short term rent which outprices any local regular rents.... yeah, I'd say that is an issue very well worth addressing.
In a world with 10 years of pretty much global Quantitative Easing policies it's certainly not one company driving the trend here, but if it's a single company who happens to have an outsized negative effect for local residents with quasi institutional, short term rent which outprices any local regular rents.... yeah, I'd say that is an issue very well worth addressing.
The issue is always a shortage of housing caused by zoning. Case closed. But let's pretend for some reason we can't build.
As you say, there are two housing supplies in a city. One for long term residents and one for short term residents.
The larger the ratio of short term supply to long term supply, the lower the prices and the more people will have an opportunity to visit the city, while prices will rise for property overall (assuming the city refuses to build). The more you constrict the supply, you start pricing out visitors from poorer areas who could never afford to live in that city, even if short term housing was banned altogether.
Everyone wants to use an example to show how your policy helps the little guy, but the reality is that there are winners and losers on both sides. Arguably, the poorest are those who could never afford to live in the idyllic tourist hotspot in the first place, so you don't want them to ever get a chance to see it? The people making the biggest fuss about AirBnB always seem to be middle class NIMBY's.
As you say, there are two housing supplies in a city. One for long term residents and one for short term residents.
The larger the ratio of short term supply to long term supply, the lower the prices and the more people will have an opportunity to visit the city, while prices will rise for property overall (assuming the city refuses to build). The more you constrict the supply, you start pricing out visitors from poorer areas who could never afford to live in that city, even if short term housing was banned altogether.
Everyone wants to use an example to show how your policy helps the little guy, but the reality is that there are winners and losers on both sides. Arguably, the poorest are those who could never afford to live in the idyllic tourist hotspot in the first place, so you don't want them to ever get a chance to see it? The people making the biggest fuss about AirBnB always seem to be middle class NIMBY's.
I actually fully agree with your point on zoning and building, and your conclusion that the poorest on both sides are being hit is also 100% on point.
Though, let's be realistic: zoning exists and building regulations are - very much unfortunately - a hot mess, and I guess it is a complex topic. As a society, we don't benefit from hyper growth which eventually and inevitably collapses, externalizing the cost of the cleanup to everyone. I guess the Financial Crisis - caused by housing (!) - showed that quite clearly.
I hear your NIMBY sentiment and again, agree on that one, but I guess it's clear that both extremes are not beneficial: Neither totally uncontrolled building nor totally forbidden short term renting is optimal.
So what about finding a compromise of limiting short term rentals to allow for the possibility, but make it unattractive for institutional business sharks and probably much more attractive for the average Jane and Joe? Still not perfect, but I can much more get behind that idea.
Though, let's be realistic: zoning exists and building regulations are - very much unfortunately - a hot mess, and I guess it is a complex topic. As a society, we don't benefit from hyper growth which eventually and inevitably collapses, externalizing the cost of the cleanup to everyone. I guess the Financial Crisis - caused by housing (!) - showed that quite clearly.
I hear your NIMBY sentiment and again, agree on that one, but I guess it's clear that both extremes are not beneficial: Neither totally uncontrolled building nor totally forbidden short term renting is optimal.
So what about finding a compromise of limiting short term rentals to allow for the possibility, but make it unattractive for institutional business sharks and probably much more attractive for the average Jane and Joe? Still not perfect, but I can much more get behind that idea.
This is exactly true. I live in one of tourist destination cities. Some property owners in my building tried to make quick bucks in short term rental market. Last summer, police had to show up to calm down British blokes who were playing it a notch too loud. I do not know who cleaned up the puke in the elevator, but hopefully the property owner got hit by a decent bill.
AirBnb is all about making profit by externalitising the cost to someone else.
AirBnb is all about making profit by externalitising the cost to someone else.
> Just admit that you don't want to share your neighborhood with tourists.
I do not mind sharing neighborhood with tourists. I'm happy to have a hotel across the street, in fact I had 2 hotels within 50m of my last place and I didn't mind it, even if it was occasionally quite noisy in the evenings.
What I do not want to share with tourists is the floor in the residential building where I live, and that's a big difference.
I do not mind sharing neighborhood with tourists. I'm happy to have a hotel across the street, in fact I had 2 hotels within 50m of my last place and I didn't mind it, even if it was occasionally quite noisy in the evenings.
What I do not want to share with tourists is the floor in the residential building where I live, and that's a big difference.
most of us also dont want home prices driven up by hedge funds and 2nd/3rd/4th mortgagers buying a house just to airbnb
Ah, yes, the hedge funds, too. So many evil groups conspiring to ruin your weekend.
What you describe is only profitable if lots of people want to travel to the destination and they can keep the properties busy (it's a lot of work). What I hear is "I don't like to travel as much as other people so I don't want to be inconvenienced by them, and I'd rather they don't get to travel."
What you describe is only profitable if lots of people want to travel to the destination and they can keep the properties busy (it's a lot of work). What I hear is "I don't like to travel as much as other people so I don't want to be inconvenienced by them, and I'd rather they don't get to travel."
It is true that the Airbnb needs to be in a place people want to travel to. But a lot of people want to travel to a lot of places – almost any city is included in this criteria.
It is a lot of work, but not for the property owner if you just hire someone to manage the property. Short term rentals are far more profitable than long term rentals (even though most of it is adjusting for risk, for both vacancy and property damage).
It is a serious problem, especially in the current housing market, that people with marginally more access to capital are able to buy investment properties and take priority over people looking to buy their primary residence. Sellers are incentivized to take cash offers instead of financed ones.
It is a lot of work, but not for the property owner if you just hire someone to manage the property. Short term rentals are far more profitable than long term rentals (even though most of it is adjusting for risk, for both vacancy and property damage).
It is a serious problem, especially in the current housing market, that people with marginally more access to capital are able to buy investment properties and take priority over people looking to buy their primary residence. Sellers are incentivized to take cash offers instead of financed ones.
Before Airbnb, your neighbour couldn't just start renting out (a part of) their house to tourists. In many European cities, and I imagine other places too, zoning laws and permits were in place that prevented that from happening. Then Airbnb came along and disrupted the market by rewriting the rules, or rather selectively forgetting about some of them.
This has a real impact on the people that live in those cities. Without it, there would still have been plenty of people that wanted to travel to these places, but without part of the housing supply meant for citizens going to tourism, the price of a room would simply go up.
This has a real impact on the people that live in those cities. Without it, there would still have been plenty of people that wanted to travel to these places, but without part of the housing supply meant for citizens going to tourism, the price of a room would simply go up.
That residential property is increasingly bought as investment by both small and large players and this is one of the factors driving prices up is a fact. See for example Figure 1.3 here [open access]
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-11674-3_...
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-11674-3_...
Poor families can already not really afford to live in the city where they work as cleaning staff, in retail, as handymen, etc. These people keep the city running, not the AirBnB landlords or hedge funds.
real estate has always been an asset class, nothing evil there. it's just a fact.
Yes--this is my fear.
We alll know corporations sole existence is making money, and most show zero restraint.
In the USA, foreigners can buy real estate with a click, or a phone call.
(I don't believe foreigners should be able to buy our land. Become a citizen first, but that's another matter.)
And yes---I don't want to live next to tourists, and short term renters.
There's a delicate balance in most neighborhoods. The last thing Americans need is rich guys buying up housing to rent short term.
The rentals are never near the mansions, so they don't care who's there.
In my county, one, or two towns (Sausalito, and Belvedere) stopped short term rentals. (I believe it's still in effect, but to tired to look it up?).
We alll know corporations sole existence is making money, and most show zero restraint.
In the USA, foreigners can buy real estate with a click, or a phone call.
(I don't believe foreigners should be able to buy our land. Become a citizen first, but that's another matter.)
And yes---I don't want to live next to tourists, and short term renters.
There's a delicate balance in most neighborhoods. The last thing Americans need is rich guys buying up housing to rent short term.
The rentals are never near the mansions, so they don't care who's there.
In my county, one, or two towns (Sausalito, and Belvedere) stopped short term rentals. (I believe it's still in effect, but to tired to look it up?).
Most people don't want to live in flophouses, and they certainly didn't pay to live in them, either.
The thing is though, the reason a place is a tourist destination is because it is special in some way. It’s appropriate for the government of a tourist-driven economy to act to preserve that specialness. Sometimes that means less tourists but higher revenue per tourist.
Please don't impute bad faith on the part of others.
I've spent the last 6 months doing airbnb hopping and I really need to find a way to share my experience. In a few words: it was amazing. We spent some time in San Diego, Hawaii, Arizona, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara. If the vaccine wasn't here, we probably would have kept going east.
I think the future will have a place for people who do not want to buy or rent a place long-term. #vanlife is already starting to spread throughout the world, but I think airbnb hopping will become much more prevalent as well.
While there were downsides: we often didn't have friends in the places we visited, and we couldn't travel with all of our stuff -- the experiences and memories we've had made this a worthy thing to do.
This is really something that I don't think would have been possible before AirBnB, the same way travelling the world wouldn't have been possible without the B2C'ization of flying.
I think the future will have a place for people who do not want to buy or rent a place long-term. #vanlife is already starting to spread throughout the world, but I think airbnb hopping will become much more prevalent as well.
While there were downsides: we often didn't have friends in the places we visited, and we couldn't travel with all of our stuff -- the experiences and memories we've had made this a worthy thing to do.
This is really something that I don't think would have been possible before AirBnB, the same way travelling the world wouldn't have been possible without the B2C'ization of flying.
Yeah you do realise that most people are not techbros with 100+ salary and are affected by people like you and in some cases have no places to live becasue of airbnb taking flats from regular city dwellers?
I reject your theory. I think issues with housing come from the inability of cities to build more housing, the lack of rent-controlled places, and investors who buy housing and do not rent the place out. On the other hand people travelling with AirBnB are much much much more prone to visit the small businesses in the district and the city, eat out, etc.
The fact that X is not the only issue does not mean X is not an issue at all.
It kind of does. Unless it is by far the biggest issue any slack in X created by legislation will only feed the biggest issue.
The biggest issue in housing is governments blocking construction to enrich existing residents.
Without fixing that, nothing can change. You can only create short-term slight easing.
The biggest issue in housing is governments blocking construction to enrich existing residents.
Without fixing that, nothing can change. You can only create short-term slight easing.
I think it's like barking at the wrong tree. Living in SF I can hear it on the daily: it's because of tech workers, it's because of airbnbs, it's because of ... at the end of the day it's misplaced anger. Housing is the main bottleneck.
What's true in SF is not true everywhere. Not many people visit SF to see the sights.
> and investors who buy housing and do not rent the place out
I wonder - Why would they do that...
I wonder - Why would they do that...
because housing is treated as an investment in the US.
How many van-lifers have small children?
Also, it seems to me that AirBnB has democratized micro hotels at the cost of unattainable housing for would be residents. I feel conflicted using the service the more I see its impact.
Also, it seems to me that AirBnB has democratized micro hotels at the cost of unattainable housing for would be residents. I feel conflicted using the service the more I see its impact.
> How many van-lifers have small children?
How is this relevant? Not everyone wants children
How is this relevant? Not everyone wants children
If you are debating how society should be set up, then knowing making it work for the majority seems important. If AirBnB makes it harder to buy a family home and easier to live #vanlife, then it is relevant how many people want a vanlife vs. a family.
I'm not debating how society should be set up, I'm talking about how parts of the society can live differently.
This debate reminds of people complaining that they couldn't bring their kids in a bar...
This debate reminds of people complaining that they couldn't bring their kids in a bar...
The claim that AirBnB is good because it enables #vanlife is countered by it is bad because it hurts #familylife. The analog relevant to your "kids in a bar" would be if you were arguing about "eliminating liquor licenses leads to everyone opening a bar in their living room, leading to more ragers for me". It would be true, but still requires kids to, at a minimum, live next door to a bar.
The point is we have a limited resource (housing) to be divided up. Allowing (including by not banning via new laws) AirBnB to exist skews the housing market in one direction.
The point is we have a limited resource (housing) to be divided up. Allowing (including by not banning via new laws) AirBnB to exist skews the housing market in one direction.
> The claim that AirBnB is good because it enables #vanlife is countered by it is bad because it hurts #familylife
I still don't get how it hurts family life, you can just choose not to do it.
> The point is we have a limited resource (housing) to be divided up. Allowing (including by not banning via new laws) AirBnB to exist skews the housing market in one direction.
You had it right in the first sentence, currently housing is the bottleneck in some cities that refuse to build more (like SF). I think anger should be directed there, not at people who want to travel and stay at someone's place instead of a hotel.
I still don't get how it hurts family life, you can just choose not to do it.
> The point is we have a limited resource (housing) to be divided up. Allowing (including by not banning via new laws) AirBnB to exist skews the housing market in one direction.
You had it right in the first sentence, currently housing is the bottleneck in some cities that refuse to build more (like SF). I think anger should be directed there, not at people who want to travel and stay at someone's place instead of a hotel.
Just trying to point out that it's a lifestyle incompatible with a large part of the population. Of course adults can live however they like. I don't mean to judge, and apologize if it comes across that way.
EU countries have a history of this kind of clumsy intervention in the market.
The market is how we as a society value collectively decide which things are more valuable than others. If hosting on Airbnb is more profitable than traditional rental in a given market, that means that Airbnb is the more valuable use of limited land and building space. Who are these anti-Airbnb activists to decide that they know better than the market what's important?
Our prosperity as a society depends on allocating scarce resources to their "highest and best" uses. Banning economic activity on the grounds of badfeels makes us all worse off.
The market is how we as a society value collectively decide which things are more valuable than others. If hosting on Airbnb is more profitable than traditional rental in a given market, that means that Airbnb is the more valuable use of limited land and building space. Who are these anti-Airbnb activists to decide that they know better than the market what's important?
Our prosperity as a society depends on allocating scarce resources to their "highest and best" uses. Banning economic activity on the grounds of badfeels makes us all worse off.
It's true on paper, but you would fight against me starting pumping oil in your backyard because it's economically much more useful than you having a nice quiet family friendly neighborhood. Airbnb has its benefits but it skips most of the regulations, zoning laws, often taxes etc.
They are people living in these places who care more about being able to live there than the market value.
The notion of prosperity measured only by who can afford to pay the most is one that would make most of us miserable, to the extent that we've over time increasingly restricted what you can your way out of because of the massive harm it does to people.
Consider that your body parts are scarce resources. Do you think the prosperity of society depends on them going to the highest bidder?
The notion of prosperity measured only by who can afford to pay the most is one that would make most of us miserable, to the extent that we've over time increasingly restricted what you can your way out of because of the massive harm it does to people.
Consider that your body parts are scarce resources. Do you think the prosperity of society depends on them going to the highest bidder?
> They are people living in these places who care more about being able to live there than the market value.
Then they can out-bid the Airbnb people. How much you pay is an expression of much you care. That's the whole point of having prices. Prices haven't done "harm" to people: they've given us the modern world!
Then they can out-bid the Airbnb people. How much you pay is an expression of much you care. That's the whole point of having prices. Prices haven't done "harm" to people: they've given us the modern world!
That would be a reasonable argument if we were all mostly unconstrained in terms of amount of money. In practice most people do not have the ability to express how much they care. Often they are instead directly harmed by high prices in terms of being forced out of communities they can no longer live in, or suffer lengthy commutes etc.. We can not accommodate the needs of everyone perfectly, but in a democracy we certainly can allow people to set rules for how their community should function in ways that seeks to balance different considerations.
Votes are an expression of how much people care too. That's the whole point of having votes.
I have also never once come across this argument without it turning out that the person making it have not thought it through or are disingenuous. Pretty much nobody wants all constraints taken away and everything left to the free market.
Put another way: If I bought all the land around your place and denied you passage, you'd starve to death soon enough. Or I could just store open vats of toxic chemicals on the neighbouring property. Or a million other things that we regulate away because society have seen the harm that allowing price to control everything does.
Votes are an expression of how much people care too. That's the whole point of having votes.
I have also never once come across this argument without it turning out that the person making it have not thought it through or are disingenuous. Pretty much nobody wants all constraints taken away and everything left to the free market.
Put another way: If I bought all the land around your place and denied you passage, you'd starve to death soon enough. Or I could just store open vats of toxic chemicals on the neighbouring property. Or a million other things that we regulate away because society have seen the harm that allowing price to control everything does.
Good joke. A retail worker outbidding a tourist who is prepared to spend a few hundreds on hotels for their yearly one week trip.
Your strategy will only kill cities. Nobody but tourists and the very rich would be able to live there. Then the tourists would stop coming because everything is dirty and nobody sells anything, and then the city is dead.
Your strategy will only kill cities. Nobody but tourists and the very rich would be able to live there. Then the tourists would stop coming because everything is dirty and nobody sells anything, and then the city is dead.
> Then they can out-bid the Airbnb people. How much you pay is an expression of much you care.
Are you aware that some countries are poor? And people living there will be unable to pay as much as tourist from USA?
Are you aware that some countries are poor? And people living there will be unable to pay as much as tourist from USA?
Interesting take, in some sense I guess AirBnB is gentrification.
Why should cities have any authority to tell people what they are or aren't allowed to do in their own, paid-for apartments?
This seems like the worst kind of "because we can" meddling.
I could imagine if, say, someone were running a call center or mini-factory in their home; there is an argument (although one I do not make) for zoning. Simply using a residential unit or building for residing by people, however, shouldn't be any business of anyone but the people so residing or the people who own/rent the space.
This seems like the worst kind of "because we can" meddling.
I could imagine if, say, someone were running a call center or mini-factory in their home; there is an argument (although one I do not make) for zoning. Simply using a residential unit or building for residing by people, however, shouldn't be any business of anyone but the people so residing or the people who own/rent the space.
Cities, or rather city governments represents their inhabitants, and inhabitants are negatively affected by having lots of short term rentals as neighbours, that is why.
If there is a big market for totally deregulated cities, I'm all for some cities choose to make residential areas free-for-all. But I certainly wouldn't want to move to a place like that.
If there is a big market for totally deregulated cities, I'm all for some cities choose to make residential areas free-for-all. But I certainly wouldn't want to move to a place like that.
Negatively affected how?
If it's noise, there are already rules and enforcement mechanisms for noise that can be used.
If it's noise, there are already rules and enforcement mechanisms for noise that can be used.
Enforcement mechanisms for noise are there to handle the extreme end of the scale, on the assumption that there are relatively natural limits in place because of how neighbourhoods are structured. That you don't understand this consideration suggests you have very limited experience with disruptive neighbours in a city.
But also e.g. increased traffic is a consideration many places, as well as simply reduced affordability for people actually connected to the place and working there.
People also pick places to live based on other factors, such as e.g. distance to schools and the like, and having density of actually available residential units driven down as such can be massively damaging to local communities, as well as drive up the costs of provisioning services as a result.
But also e.g. increased traffic is a consideration many places, as well as simply reduced affordability for people actually connected to the place and working there.
People also pick places to live based on other factors, such as e.g. distance to schools and the like, and having density of actually available residential units driven down as such can be massively damaging to local communities, as well as drive up the costs of provisioning services as a result.
> That you don't understand this consideration suggests you have very limited experience with disruptive neighbours in a city.
Quite the contrary; I moved out of my last Berlin flat due to precisely this. Apparently uncontrolled children are a free pass to avoid any sort of noise control regulations applied to buildings.
Reduced affordability is a function of supply and demand. If a place is in high demand, it is natural and expected for it to cost more to live there.
Quite the contrary; I moved out of my last Berlin flat due to precisely this. Apparently uncontrolled children are a free pass to avoid any sort of noise control regulations applied to buildings.
Reduced affordability is a function of supply and demand. If a place is in high demand, it is natural and expected for it to cost more to live there.
It is only "natural" to you because you have decided to believe it is.
You used the right-wing libertarian threat of violence trope earlier, but ignored when I pointed out libertarianism has it's origin in going further than anarchism in rejecting property rights based on a similar line of thinking: that property rights only exists as a deviation from the natural by threat of violence.
This notion that arbitrary subjective political views are "natural" is pretty much always an attempt at waving away objections.
In this case to others it is "natural" that we should put the ability of inhabitants of a city to afford to live there ahead of maximising profit, and that using property rights in contravention of that is a demonstration of how property rights reduces freedom.
You used the right-wing libertarian threat of violence trope earlier, but ignored when I pointed out libertarianism has it's origin in going further than anarchism in rejecting property rights based on a similar line of thinking: that property rights only exists as a deviation from the natural by threat of violence.
This notion that arbitrary subjective political views are "natural" is pretty much always an attempt at waving away objections.
In this case to others it is "natural" that we should put the ability of inhabitants of a city to afford to live there ahead of maximising profit, and that using property rights in contravention of that is a demonstration of how property rights reduces freedom.
I was speaking in the context of the society under discussion, that employs all of these things that result in supply and demand affecting prices being "natural":
* privately owned/controlled real property
* market-based pricing
You have mischaracterized my views ("right-wing libertarian"), and seem to have misunderstood what I was pointing out. It isn't my view that prices should naturally increase as demand does: that is the view of the society and housing market under discussion, as that is how it operates today, and the system that both the hotels and AirBnB services in those markets operate within.
* privately owned/controlled real property
* market-based pricing
You have mischaracterized my views ("right-wing libertarian"), and seem to have misunderstood what I was pointing out. It isn't my view that prices should naturally increase as demand does: that is the view of the society and housing market under discussion, as that is how it operates today, and the system that both the hotels and AirBnB services in those markets operate within.
Pretty much every society around, and certainly Berlin employ all kinds of mechanisms to shield people against the impacts of unconstrained supply and demand, and restricting AirBnb is just one more example of societies employing regulation as a means to do so. By your argument this is then "normal" so what are you objecting to?
> You have mischaracterized my views ("right-wing libertarian")
I referred very specifically to the appeal to violence, which is a very distinctly right-libertarian argument.
> It isn't my view that prices should naturally increase as demand does: that is the view of the society and housing market under discussion, as that is how it operates today, and the system that both the hotels and AirBnB services in those markets operate within.
Except society is not static, and part of the view of society is that regulations are under the purview of democratically elected governments, with the power to restrict how such services operate.
> You have mischaracterized my views ("right-wing libertarian")
I referred very specifically to the appeal to violence, which is a very distinctly right-libertarian argument.
> It isn't my view that prices should naturally increase as demand does: that is the view of the society and housing market under discussion, as that is how it operates today, and the system that both the hotels and AirBnB services in those markets operate within.
Except society is not static, and part of the view of society is that regulations are under the purview of democratically elected governments, with the power to restrict how such services operate.
The kind of properties which are under debate are not detached farms in the countryside. They’re apartments with lots of close neighbours typically. Things are very close-nit in Europe. There are popular tv comedies about the trials and tribulations of living in apartments in European cities. Community living is taken very (some would say way too) seriously in many European countries.
Honestly it’s very easy to find explanations of the problems from different perspectives if you google. (I’m on mobile)
Honestly it’s very easy to find explanations of the problems from different perspectives if you google. (I’m on mobile)
[deleted]
Residing isn't the same thing as having different people in and out on a daily basis, with no connection to or accountability to the community and one's neighbors.
There's also just a raw market concern: using housing stock + AirBnB as an investment/storage for wealth has serious effects on the ability of people to live in these communities. The market is amoral; it's up to us to elect leaders who constrain it with rules that reflect our values.
There's also just a raw market concern: using housing stock + AirBnB as an investment/storage for wealth has serious effects on the ability of people to live in these communities. The market is amoral; it's up to us to elect leaders who constrain it with rules that reflect our values.
What right do you have to use the threat of violence to constrain others with rules using a residential unit peacefully and in accordance with the safety/quiet enjoyment laws that govern normal, safe use of such space?
To believe that you have some right to control the events in the home of another person (that doesn't affect you) is the part that, to me, is entirely amoral. There is no reasonable basis for it, in my view.
Substitute "having boarders" with "having kinky/non-heteronormative sex" or any other thing the neighbors would object to that doesn't affect them and isn't their business to see where I'm coming from.
To believe that you have some right to control the events in the home of another person (that doesn't affect you) is the part that, to me, is entirely amoral. There is no reasonable basis for it, in my view.
Substitute "having boarders" with "having kinky/non-heteronormative sex" or any other thing the neighbors would object to that doesn't affect them and isn't their business to see where I'm coming from.
Property rights only exist in the first place in the form of threat of violence to constraint others. It's a societal compact that comes with responsibilities, not just rights. The fact that it exists only as the threat of violence is incidentally why the person who invented libertarianism - Joseph Dejacque - opposed property rights, and cited Proudhon's famous "property is theft" in the letter that first set out libertarianism as a political ideology.
It then gets comical when people try to use the "threat of violence" right libertarian mantra in defence of property.
If this use did not impact neighbours, I'd be entirely with you, but it does affect neighbours. You're arguing you should have a right to harm others, while they should have no recourse.
It then gets comical when people try to use the "threat of violence" right libertarian mantra in defence of property.
If this use did not impact neighbours, I'd be entirely with you, but it does affect neighbours. You're arguing you should have a right to harm others, while they should have no recourse.
I've yet to see the city-level arguments against AirBnB that aren't simple money grabs by the local tax authorities, or protectionist nonsense for the large hotel businesses (which reduces back to same).
Both of the cities in which I live are huge tourist destinations and maybe the harm you are describing is totally invisible or something, but I haven't seen or experienced it, or known anyone else who has, despite living in the ground-zero neighborhoods for such things.
I certainly don't believe anyone has a right to infringe upon the quiet enjoyment of anyone else at home.
Both of the cities in which I live are huge tourist destinations and maybe the harm you are describing is totally invisible or something, but I haven't seen or experienced it, or known anyone else who has, despite living in the ground-zero neighborhoods for such things.
I certainly don't believe anyone has a right to infringe upon the quiet enjoyment of anyone else at home.
If it was quiet enjoyment of anyone else at home, nobody would be complaining. It's exactly because that isn't what it is there are complaints.
Good for you that you've not been affected. Lots of other people have, and you're arguing for depriving them of quiet enjoyment of their homes because you want people to be free to ignore the effects of their own actions on others.
Incidentally I'd be all for supporting proposals to zone to allow unrestricted tourist rentals in certain places if there's demand for it. But I sure as hell would never live in such a zone.
Good for you that you've not been affected. Lots of other people have, and you're arguing for depriving them of quiet enjoyment of their homes because you want people to be free to ignore the effects of their own actions on others.
Incidentally I'd be all for supporting proposals to zone to allow unrestricted tourist rentals in certain places if there's demand for it. But I sure as hell would never live in such a zone.
How have those other people been affected?
I think the burden of proof lies on the people who are claiming that this isn't hotel and tax protectionism.
I think the burden of proof lies on the people who are claiming that this isn't hotel and tax protectionism.
If you do not understand how noise, traffic and higher prices affect people, then this discussion is pointless, as you seem intent on being intentionally obtuse about the concerns of other people.
Tourism can decrease housing supply, making is less affordable for long-term tenants. At the same time it can also increases city and local business revenues. This is a tradeoff that cities should consider and decide where they want to stand.
Of course if you have unbounded house construction policy, than tourism would not effect long-term housing prices much (Though it can impact price distribution in terms of location). But such policy might be impossible in historical city centers such as Paris where buildings have historical value, and are probably one of the reasons for tourism in the first place.
On the other hand, short-term housing, especially through things like Airbnb, can often be offered by people who just have a spare room and who otherwise would not bother renting it out. Allocating this type of housing to tourists might not hurt the housing market by a lot. (Though I do wonder what percentage of Airbnbs actually have such a situation)