Having short term guests hurts the neighborhood? How? So every neighborhood with a hotel in it is automatically a dump?
Read through the rest of the comments thread then. There are plenty of examples, and there are even more if you scroll down to the bottom of this page and type AirBnB in the search box.
> At least if an AirBnB guest is a jerk, they'll be gone in a couple days.
And then a next one comes.
> Having short term guests hurts the neighborhood? How? So every neighborhood with a hotel in it is automatically a dump?
It does, because short-term guests have no incentive to care about the quality of life in that neighbourhood. Notice that you can't put a hotel anywhere - there are zoning restrictions exactly because short-term guests tend to create some problems, and many people decided they don't want such an establishment in their areas. AirBnB subletting is basically ignoring the will locals expressed about what they do and do not want in their neighbourhood.
> Tracy Smith lives two houses down from one of Martin’s rentals, a short walk to the popular Rainey Street restaurants and bars. She says she’d rather see kids in the backyard of Martin’s property than guys playing beer pong
Sorry, lady. You don't get to decide what happens in other people's backyards. I don't consider busybodies who want to enact housing discrimination based on age and marital status as having a valid concern we should support with legislation.
Another comment below complains about tourists being drunk and noisy and making groceries more expensive. I live in DC. Every year tourists descend on us like locusts. They clog up the public transportation, they don't know how to drive in traffic circles, and they're generally in the way and obnoxious. Still, that's part of the price you pay for living somewhere with lots of interesting things that people want to come see. There are plenty of boring, cheap places with no tourists or other short-term visitors.
> And then a next one comes.
Yes, and in an all probability, they won't be a jerk. Most people are normal, reasonable human beings.
> It does, because short-term guests have no incentive to care about the quality of life in that neighbourhood.
But the hotel has every incentive to care about the quality of life in the neighborhood. They also have far more resources compared to the average homeowner to influence the local government to e.g. increase police patrols or provide better street sweeping or whatever.
Zoning areas by use type has created its own enormous set of problems, from ever-increasing traffic, pollution from forcing people drive everywhere they need to go, increased water usage to support ornamental lawns, poor storm water management, tremendous infrastructure investments necessary to support low-density suburban areas where the property taxes can never repay the investment, and on, and on.
These are real externalities that are far more serious and damaging than "maybe a noisy person will be next door for a couple nights". So, people's decision that they don't want "such an establishment" in their area, ultimately creates its own set of costs that the rest of us have to bear.
Yes, the point being that they give value to one group (their clients) while dumping externalities on everyone else. This is not something that society is supposed to tolerate; the company doing that should either stop dumping externalities or at least pay everyone else to compensate (taxes are one way of achieving that).
I'm not denying AirBnB/Uber are providing a valuable service to their customers. They do. They provide excellent and inexpensive service. At a cost for everyone else. Hence as I wrote in my original comment, it's burning trust to produce dollars.
> That's just pure speculation. Until we see the language we have no idea what cases it destroys or doesn't, or how vaguely worded it is. If there's a use that's beneficial to both parties, it should be possible to find a party who's willing to agree to it in order to receive that benefit, if the market is allowed to operate.
I didn't want to elaborate on that in order to keep the comment relatively short. But it's not "just a speculation", it's the obvious consequence of allowing the market to cooperate. If everyone bans AirBnB specifically in the contract, the existence of competition on the market implies that renters will soon have a problem with WaterMattressAndSupper. In order not to turn a contract into ever increasing blacklist, the point will have to be phrased vaguely.
> If there is in fact a problem, it should be easy enough to point out the facts of the damage that's being done without resorting to calling people names like douchebag and asshole. Such insults usually come out when there isn't any logical argument to be made.
There are arguments to be made, and there are being made. A lot of practical and economical ones. I was just trying to point out that insults like "asshole" don't mean "I have no arguments so I'll curse you instead". They're shorthands for "you're breaking an implicit social contract".