Still annoyed at AirBNB ban

[gzz]

I do not see any need to pass additional laws to regulate STVRs. As Flyer said, if there are noise problems, enforce noise laws.

STVR are already subject to a huge hotel tax.

Think of the numbers here for a basic 1/1 condo in OB:

Annual rent on long-term lease: $20,000
City revenue from that rent: 0
Average sales tax per day from resident living there: $30*7%= about $2 or about $700/year.
Total city taxes collected: $700/year

AirBNB: Annual rent $90/day off seasons $150/day on season = $40,000
Hotel tax = $5,000
Sales tax on $80 a day in visitor spending = $2000

Total city revenue from AirBNB $7000/year

I may be off a little on some of these estimates, but I doubt it is that much. The city collects about 10 times more in taxes from an AirBNB then a rented condo, and this is only the direct economic effect.

This AirBNB is going to have to be made up one way or another. How much in extra taxes or cut city services are you willing to deal with to ban AirBNB?

[gzz]

Now if I did want to restrict AirBNB, I would just raise the hotel tax on them even higher. At some point, the tax will be high enough people will stop converting them to STVR. If there are 10,000 in the city now at the current hotel tax, raise it to 20% and that might cut the number down to 5,000.

In general taxes are the best way to deter behavior than command-and-control regulations that ban it completely in some cases, while providing a windfall to those still allowed to do it. That’s what the city did. If you have a granny flat in your primary residence beach house, you now can make a mint as one of the few options a tourist will see when looking for a STVR.

Or more likely, the law will be selectively enforced.

These are all a lot worse than just letting people know there is a certain tax up front and they can make their own decisions.

[gzz]

EJ raises a good point that is not limited to STVR. Which is that small local landlords are better for a community than large out-of-state ones.

As with STVR, I would just make our taxes reflect this, and make the annual tax the city has on long-term rentals much higher, but also waive it on the first two units owned.

So someone with two rentals would see their tax paid go from maybe $100 to $0, but someone with 100 would see it go from $5000 to $50,000.

This is a double effect on reducing inequality. The first reason is that it benefits us minor landowners at the expensive of the very wealthy. But the other reason is that large out-of-state landlords tend to squeeze every last penny out of their tenants, often using dubious means like stealing security deposits. It is lot easier to screw over tenants when you have never met them.

[FlyerInHi]

minor correction, gzz. The state gets the sales tax. The city only gets its small portion.

But tourists definitely bring a lot more revenue. Plus they don’t need services. There’s also a multiplier with tourist spending on local businesses.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=gzz]
Or more likely, the law will be selectively enforced.
[/quote]

I want to see how it’s going to play out. Neighbors will be snitching on one another which will destroy neighborly relations.

I have a friend in a primo Bay Area neighborhood who is converting her master suite into Airbnb. Her son is moving to college and they don’t need the space. I told her to be sure to get permits for her new French door, kitchenette, etc… because her longtime neighbor “friends” will become enemies real quick.

The city will have to create an enforcement task force to go knock on doors and ask for leases.

[FlyerInHi]

Not in San Diego, but I have this situation just come up.

2 guys are working on a project for the next 8 to 12 months. They want to rent my unit for that period. They would fly in M-F and the weekends would be mine.

That kind of lease would actually be allowed under the SD Airbnb ban. Be I could not lease the weekends to different tenants. So stupid.

The world is changing. Real estate should adapt to how people want to live. More innovation means more wealth for society. Why resist?

[gzz]

City counsel just voted 8-1 to repeal this stupid law.

AirBNB for everybody!

Zapf, I will remember you voting against my property rights and values if you ever run for anything else.

[FlyerInHi]

Good to know.
There are a lot of old fashioned people out there. People really need to keep up and adapt to changes. That’s what creative destruction is all about.

[EJ]

I don’t think this is over. It is still illegal to have short term rentals in residential neighborhoods. I hope they start to enforce it.

My understanding is that it was rescinded to prevent waiting to 2020 for a vote to decide. AND, the only reason this went to a ballot vote is because paid signature collectors gathered enough signatures to force the vote (using very deceptive tactics, that I experienced first-hand).

I hope the city council comes up with something, but I worry that a couple years will pass and we get nowhere, and then wish we had the vote in 2020. I think they need to make an exception for MB, since the STVR’s are so prominent. Maybe if they had, there would not have been so much push-back. But please stay out of OB and other areas with the mini-hotels, it is completely inappropriate and illegal in residential neighborhoods.

I am confident if a similar measure ever goes to ballot, the folks at the beach are not going to allow the mini-hotels to operate. It is very unpopular with the residents and the correlation to increasing home prices and rents is very clear.

The proponents of STVR’s claim to want freedom in their property rights, but there is a big difference between commercial and residential property zones. What about the rights of people who purchased a home in a residential zone that are now dealing with commercial enterprises next door. Where is the line drawn? Sounds like some folks think mini-hotels are ok? How about backyard restaurants in residential areas (the people in the mini-hotels need to eat after all)? How about a strip club? Can I fill up my yard with RV’s and rent those out? Can I offer my backyard as a landfill to a chemical company?

I think there is a compromise that can be made to allow people some freedom to rent their homes, but limits the influence of large out of town investors who only care about the bottom line. The out of town investors have no incentive to protect our communities. If STVR’s are left unchecked, I suspect most of the beach areas would eventually end up like MB, where people can only afford to stay there for 1 week per year and very few local residents are living there year round.

[barnaby33]

Ej you’re right its not over. The city council can’t please both groups. Those who want a total ban on STRs and those who claim it’s legal period.

I was at the city council meeting this week. Those in support of STRs were a diverse group. Those against were angry old and white. Pretty much any issue that is supported by that group I’m on the other side and I was ambivalent at best about whole home rentals.

By the way, they aren’t yet illegal because there is no case law against the ban. The city code says they are illegal, but different attorneys within the city have rendered different opinions, so the jury is still out.

Josh

[FlyerInHi]

What’s wrong with maximum economic use? It’s something you can quantify and measure.

I think we should allow upzoning and tall buildings. Then we’ll have mass transit and accommodate more people. It’s a win win when more people live in and enjoy a neighborhood.
Cities are supposed to change over time. We have new building technologies now. Why continue to live in little wood houses from last century?

The opponents of development are so anti progress.

[FlyerInHi]

I find it interesting that the coastal commission supports short term rentals because they allow access to the coast. True, you may not be able to afford to buy a coastal house, but you can rent one on Airbnb. The key should be access to as many people as possible.

[FlyerInHi]

This is what 2 San Diego surf bros are doing. Very cool.

People who oppose everything are old curmudgeons who don’t believe in progress and creative destruction.

“The way travel is going, I think it’s all kind of pulling away from big hotels and resorts. People want to connect with someone who knows the area and gives an authentic local experience,” Nikki said.

And the brothers are stoked to do it. Nikki and Sander, who began as a bellhop and Airbnb home host, respectively, are now riding their second wave in hosting. From 2016 to 2017, they converted a former convalescent home in their hometown of Encinitas, California into eight surf-inspired Airbnb rooms, collectively known as the Surfhouse Boutique Motel.

https://community.withairbnb.com/t5/Airbnb-Updates/Superhost-spotlight-how-two-brothers-went-from-home-hosts-to/ba-p/963273

https://abnb.me/QVnepyoXWV

[FlyerInHi]

My young cousin in the Midwest just told me that they rented 1/2 their split level by the university for $1500/night during graduation week. A rich family from NYC stayed.
Win-win all the way. I don’t see why people would want to ban Airbnb.

Isn’t this a free country where people can enter into contract and rent properties as they wish? So what if the old ways are disrupted? Times change. Need to change along.

[barnaby33]

Until you live next to it, then it’s not so avant garde.
Josh

[Author]

Posts