Still annoyed at AirBNB ban

[JPJones]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Originalists would disagree. Zoning is not in the Constitution and didn’t arise until the 20th century and didn’t become common place until after WWII. With current zoning we would not have Manhattan today. Individual property rights were once stronger than community benefits under the police power of the state which is what zoning is derived from. Read up and you will see.[/quote]
“Go look it up” is a terribly weak way to make a point. If you aren’t willing to present supporting information, then why bother?

[JPJones]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The ban is new law. Not enforcement of existing laws. Why not enforce existing nuisance laws?

Remenber, short term leases don’t cause problems. People cause problems.

I’m confident things with change with technology and acceptance by the younger generations. It could however take a long, long time.

Like I said before, if you want to close your neighborhood to ST renters, others will do the same to you. What if you want to spend some time at a nice home in Santa Barbara or the French wine country to relax for 3 weeks? That option could be closed off — net loss for humanity.[/quote]

It will take a long, long time. The younger generations are renters now, so this decision should in theory directly benefit them. And seriously, could you afford regular 3 week vacations in your 20s? What do you consider to be young?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Myriad] By your line of thinking, anyone should be able to build anything anywhere. I could just build a 30 story apartment complex next to a cottage home.
[/quote]

That would be wonderful. And the owner of the cottage home would enjoy an economic windfall. He might sell and retire.

And they did just that in Manhattan to get the best economic use of the land. And we are all the better for it.

[JPJones]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Myriad] By your line of thinking, anyone should be able to build anything anywhere. I could just build a 30 story apartment complex next to a cottage home.
[/quote]

That would be wonderful. And the owner of the cottage home would enjoy an economic windfall. He might sell and retire.

And they did just that in Manhattan to get the best economic use of the land. And we are all the better for it.[/quote]
Speak for yourself. Manhattan is a terrible place to live unless you’re filthy rich.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=JPJones]
Speak for yourself. Manhattan is a terrible place to live unless you’re filthy rich.[/quote]

Lifestyle is all relative. I’m talking about maximizing the economic value of land. You can always sell and move.

And neighborhoods should be organic and change based on economic conditions. Don’t resist change. Embrace it.

[Myriad]

It’s an interesting thesis. I might be supportive of this if changes were planned properly – for safety, transport, infrastructure, etc. Basically simcity – the heck of out it.

It’s a better plan than the current High Speed Rail plan.
If you could just build the HSR without worrying about EIR or eminent domain, the entire SF-SD segment could be done in about 10 years.

Housing and transport would be a lot better in CA if you could build high density housing high rises near mass transit.

[FlyerInHi]

China built, not one line, but their whole HSR network in 10 years. It’s safer than Amtrak that had many accidents recently.

Remember, back when China started, people predicted abject failure, poo-pooed their creativity, engineering, future safety, etc… Now they are managing networks around the world and exporting technology. They created an industry larger than Boeing! Thousands of jobs and incredible wealth!

[FlyerInHi]

Remember that the Constitution also a contract clause. States shall not impair contracts.

Well, the airbnb ban outlaws leases under 30 days.

Just saying for originalists out there that the Constitution specifically protects private property rights and contracts, but says nothing about zoning which is all about restricting uses.

[EJ]

I would be interested to hear other peoples ideas for how to regulate the vacation rentals.

Sounds like we have some people that feel they should not be regulated at all, which is one idea.

I provided an idea above.

We had Faulkner’s proposal to limit to 2 STVR properties per owner (with some nuances), no restrictions on amount of time per year that could be rented or if it needs to be owner occupied. This would still allow out of town folks to buy STVR’s in SD.

We have Bry’s proposal, which limits to STVR to primary residence and only part of the year. A granny flat on same property as primary residence can be ST rented year round. This effectively prevents out of town investors from buying properties and turning them into STVR. This proposal was recently passed by city council vote.

Any other ideas?

[Myriad]

Allow each neighborhood to determine what’s an acceptable rate of STVR. Then allow owners to participate in a lottery system to obtain a license with a new lottery every year.

Or allow a neighborhood the option to designate certain areas as available for STVR without restriction.

[FlyerInHi]

Under Faulkner’s plan, can each member of a family have 2 properties? Is an LLC a separate entity?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Myriad]Allow each neighborhood to determine what’s an acceptable rate of STVR. Then allow owners to participate in a lottery system to obtain a license with a new lottery every year.

Or allow a neighborhood the option to designate certain areas as available for STVR without restriction.[/quote]

That’s a horrible idea. That last thing you want to do is enable busybody neighbors.

[Myriad]

It’s better than the existing plan and more feasible than getting rid of zoning.

[Myriad]

It’s better than the existing plan and more feasible than getting rid of zoning.

[FlyerInHi]

The primary residence requirement is so economically asinine.
Second homes should be made available when not in use. Why keep the inventory off the market and iddle?

[Author]

Posts