By joining a HOA, you've delegated away to the collective the right to dictate to your neighbors what they can and can't do with their own property. In your case, the system worked - because you are in a HOA. If people want to exert that kind of collectivist control over their neighbors, that's the kind of organization they should be buying homes in.
But outside of that structure, what gives someone the right to dictate to their neighbors what they can and can't do with their own property? All kinds of small businesses are routinely run out of residential zoned properties. "Renting a room" seems like the kind of small business that's ideal for this situation - it takes no more infrastructure to house a vacation rental than it does to house a longer-term resident. "Hotels" require employees and elevators and truckloads of supplies delivered weekly; vacation rentals have none of that, and so the comparison makes little sense beyond "they are noisy". Leaseholders can also throw parties and be disruptive; there is an existing legal process to deal with noise complaints.
This category of complaint seems like a thin veneer around the core of truth that people who sink a colossal chunk of their nest egg and future earnings into one asset are knee-jerk averse to anything perceived as a threat to it.
The local laws which are at least indirectly decided by the people who live there decide whether people have a right to do business in residential areas or not.
> This category of complaint seems like a thin veneer around the core of truth that people who sink a colossal chunk of their nest egg and future earnings into one asset are knee-jerk averse to anything perceived as a threat to it.
I'm not a homeowner. I just dislike the idea of a company profiting off blatant disregard of the law. I personally don't really care about rentals, but if you want to do them then I hold the opinion you should get the laws changed to allow for them.
If anything, allowing vacation rentals would actually increase the value of homes in that area because it probably increases the rent.
While people have qualms with the effect of short term rentals on housing markets, they usually don't show up on an HOA level.
The real problem is they were being bad neighbors, not that they were short-term neighbors, and once your neighbor starts to ruin your ability to enjoy your home you have a just argument to take action.
> But outside of that structure, what gives someone the right to dictate to their neighbors what they can and can't do with their own property?
The fact that you live in close proximity to them so many of your activities can affect them, and that it's only by communal agreement that you even have "property" at all.
This is literally the core of the concept of zoning.
If you don't like it work against zoning laws, but there's generally a consensus on the broader topic here.
"But outside of that structure, what gives someone the right to dictate to their neighbors what they can and can't do with their own property?"
Zoning. Literally, most cities and towns have laws about where someone can run a hotel. A huge number of AirBNB rentals are highly illegal.
People get away with operating small businesses in residential zones because the businesses they usually operate tend to operate unnoticed and without disrupting neighbors' lives. For example, working from home as an independent contractor, or simply receiving business mail at your home address--these things have zero impact on your neighbors, generally speaking. It's quite possible to operate such a small business out of your home or apartment without any of your neighbors ever even realizing it.
Now, if you were actually engaged in providing services to customers directly from your home or apartment, that would be a different story. If you had a steady stream of clients visiting your home, your neighbors might be right to complain about the increased traffic, noise, or any other undesirable consequences.
Treating your property like a hotel is no different from treating it like a restaurant or a hair salon or a department store; it changes the character of the neighborhood, places extra (or at the very least unexpected) load on local infrastructure (which may not be designed to handle it), potentially reduces security, and causes any number of other potentially adverse side effects.
But I'd say that your argument that operating a hotel out of your home is somehow just like operating any other kind of small business falls on its face by virtue of the fact that operating a hotel out of your home is clearly quite controversial while operating many other kinds of small businesses is not. If these things were the same, this discussion would not be happening.
Because any livable set of laws recognizes that externalities are a thing and need to be addressed.
I, as a homeowner, can't start amassing a large pile of radioactive material on my property. I can't start a home-based waste incineration company, even if the structure exists entirely on my property. There's a ton of stuff I can't do, because there are laws prohibiting it.
If the laws right now don't address "you can't invite enough strangers to your house such that it causes a lot of waste or damage to your neighborhood," then that's just because we didn't have broadly accessible systems in place to invite those strangers; it doesn't mean that that's now or has ever been okay, just like collecting a pile of radioactive waste in my backyard hasn't been okay since we learned about the harms of radiation poisoning.
"Why can't people do x?" Because we live in a society.
Your rant about people not knowing better than to diversify investment is completely oblivious of the fact that most people out there have no reasonable way to do so, and that their only protection is the existence of such rules.
Yup. And they typically have something in common - they don't bother the neighbors or create an atmosphere that is noticeably different than that of a residential neighborhood without the home business.
Work from a home office? No one will notice (other than the fact that you're home a lot). Teach piano lessons? As long as your students' parents don't park in front of other houses, probably not a big deal. (But people will notice.)
Want to run a metal shop out of your garage M-F? You'll get shut down because it's a disruption. Want to do metal shop projects on the weekend? No big deal, as long as you don't start too early and bother the neighbors.
> "Renting a room" seems like the kind of small business that's ideal for this situation - it takes no more infrastructure to house a vacation rental than it does to house a longer-term resident.
It's not about the "infrastructure" (when reduced to simply "a place to stay"), but about the externalities of everything that comes with frequent turnover of for-pay visitors. A vacation rental inherently means frequent turnover of residents, whereas "renting a room" means having a long(er) term resident with much less turnover.
> Leaseholders can also throw parties and be disruptive; there is an existing legal process to deal with noise complaints.
Yup, and it's easy to do because a leaseholder, well, lives there so the law can take its course. A vacation renter is gone pretty much before you can pursue any existing legal processes apart from calling the cops to come by and tell them to turn the music down. So, the AirBnB renter doesn't have to live with much/any consequences; the AirBnB "host" doesn't necessarily have consequences since they'll say "I won't rent to them again"; but the folks in the neighborhood do suffer from it.
Perhaps the law differs where you live, but where I live, local ordnance on repeated noise complaints gradually ramps penalties up from warnings to fines, so hosts have a strong interest in preventing partying at their properties. That seems a more appropriate legislative response than banning short-term rentals entirely.
Or maybe buy in a city that makes the decision to not allow that kind of rental?
I don't see a significant difference in a step up from the association I was in where you deemed that ok, to a city making the same decision.
I was just following his logic that he felt it was ok that the associating decided and that if a city decided the same, then I don't see much difference.
Ha. Don't come in Europe cities. There _are_ regulations in cities about that. And rightly so.
AirBnB is making it easier for individual people to ignore these rules, and the to date enforcement hasn't been particularly strong.
Property rights are usually a literal appeal to authority (e.g. a community or a government).
Noise complaints are a downstream symptom. It's often unproductive and ineffective for laws to try to back-propagate policy by regulating downstream symptoms and hoping upstream symptoms get fixed as a result.
This is a really well-crafted statement that applies widely to all kinds of issues in governance.
I don't object to you running a hotel next door, but I expect your guests to behave themselves well..
Perhaps if the root issues were given some easy way for one to satisfactorily resolve when they arise then their would be far less support for outright bans.
The problem is that any law or rule is only as good as its enforcement. People forget this too often when writing regulations, ending up with rules that are too costly, or involve too much invasion of privacy to get right.
I think the lesson is that you should always consider enforcement when writing policy. It needs to be front-and-center, not a secondary concern. A worse policy may end up being better if it's more easily enforceable.
On the other hand, if they behave themselves just as well as long-term owners, then no, you really shouldn't have any say whatsoever about who lives in your neighbor's property.
We live in a society.
The fact that what you do with your own property often has direct effects on your neighbors. This is why zoning regulations exist, for example. And noise ordinances. And building codes. There isn't a magical forcefield that ends at your property line that prevents what you're doing from having an adverse affect on others.
Just like people who don't like noise should be careful about living close to other people, people who like to be left alone to do what they want with their own property need to take the same considerations into mind.
Texas has barely any zoning and it’s doing fine.
There is tons of zoning in Texas; I think you're thinking of Houston.
What does this mean? If I owned a house in your neighborhood and had to move away for work, my options are to sell the house, or get on a waitlist till the number of houses rented out reduces?
As someone that's never owned a house, that sounds like a shitty rule that should be disrupted. I'm assuming there is a positive side to that only homeowners can see.
For starters, several federal agencies actually require COA's to limit the number of units that are not owner-occupied as a condition for government-backed mortgages. Some states and local laws also place caps on this to prevent condos from being used as unregistered hotels (see eg timeshares).
As for your options? Generally, for cases like this your option would be to sell the unit or request an exemption. If you're moving far away, it's very likely that the COA will not grant the exemption, because units rented out by distant absentee landlords tend to generate the most and worst problems that COAs deal with.
This seems incorrect. They are more common than you think, especially in neighborhoods built within the last 30-40 years.
But, most of those mid-70s neighborhoods have fairly light-weight rules... Some architecture review, but generally not the crazy "can't leave garage door open" or "potted plants must all be in pots 13.25" in diameter" stuff.
https://foundation.caionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/...
I don't think I've seen a development in the last 30 years that doesn't have an HOA, and it seems like like all of Florida/Texas is HOA.
I'm on a condo board currently and those are an entirely separate thing, much more intense, much more money, and much more service (when run well).
So, yes, there is a positive side. Most people have lived in places with absentee landlords. Many people don't want a preponderance of absentee landlord properties in a place where there is such direct impact from doing so; the thinking goes that if you rent out a house across the street from me, they might be annoying, but if you rent out a condo unit above mine, your tenants might flood my apartment because they didn't tell you the toilet had problems. Important difference.
If you don't like that, don't buy into a condo association that does it. It is extremely rare for a rental-limit rule to be put in place these days, so in practice you should know going in whether those rules are in place. If by some chance you live in the one in a thousand that does try to put those rules in place today, sell and move on.
Folks can debate if government backed mortgages should be a thing, but as far as an association we decided we wanted to preserve the opportunity for folks to sell easily (well as easily as possible) by matching the government limits.
Some of the folks renting at the time were quite upset... until I explained for the 12th time to them that everyone renting on that day still could rent, and then there would be a limit... so they were actually in a good spot. Takes people a while to understand sometimes ;)
eropple kinda touches on a side concern about absentee landlords and such and that was very much on our mind as well.
I did say in another comment that we allowed some exceptions if the limit was reached. In fact we approved all exceptions that came our way as there were very few requests. We wanted folks to be able to rent if they had to move fast, family event, and couldn't sell quickly. We didn't want to put anyone in a bind.
HOAs no longer are able to do that directly (even though naked racial discrimination was actually central to the original purpose of HOAs and the covenants which give life to them), but they continue to enforce cultural standards that are designed particularly to enforce the behavior preferred by a particular subculture and exclude others.
Also dog owners. I know an HOA board that was, for a time, populated by fervent dog haters. They enacted a rule that forbid dogs from all streets and sidewalks. You could only walk your dog between your house and the next to the common grassy area behind. There's been some turnover in the board, but the rule is still in effect AFAIK.
I like dogs myself. But others don't so it's nice they have at least a few options on communities to live where they don't have to deal with dogs.
Neither children or dogs are associated with particular subcultures. They're both about as mainstream as you can get.
> I like dogs myself. But others don't so it's nice they have at least a few options on communities to live where they don't have to deal with dogs.
No, there's nothing "nice" about it. It was a shitty thing for the board to do to a community with lots of existing dog owners who had no say in the process. Now the neighborhood has to try to turn over enough board seats to get rid of the rule. The main instigator was a cranky old lady who is now gone, so it's probably just a matter of time. In the meantime it looks like people are largely ignoring it, but that's not a solution.
To me, the "isolated examples" like this are reason enough for HOA reform movements that seem to be gaining momentum across the country. The fact that HOAs can so easily forbid activities that residents enjoyed when they bought their home, such as walking their dogs, is proof to me that new laws are needed to restrict their power.
As you say the laws to destroy them already exist, all it takes is the effort to use it.
10 people per room.
As the Wikipedia article I linked states, flophouses were typically rented by transients -- what we generally call "the homeless" these days. The term "flophouse" originated with hobos and propagated out to the larger culture.
I was homeless for several years. The prices listed in the thing you linked are comparable to what I sometimes paid for one night for a hotel in Fresno.
There are people these days who are without permanent residence who live in hotels. Some definitions of homelessness count them as homeless.
What you linked really doesn't fit what I am talking about. I have seen articles about illegal rentals stuffing multiple people into one room in big cities. They usually found them via Craigslits, iirc.
Most AirBnB listings are along the lines of the cost of a hotel or more. From what I gather, they wind up being a hotel alternative in most cases, not something dirt cheap with no amenities that a homeless person might rent for a night or two.
I blog about homelessness. I still talk to homeless people at times. I've had a college class on homelessness. I'm not uninformed on the topic of homelessness and what homeless people today are doing to get by.
AirBnB rentals are not some bog standard coping mechanism for today's homeless, from what I gather.
1. Would you say you, personally, were "homeless" at the time that you lived there?
2. Would you say the photo the listing was representative? Or would you say it actually looked more like a filthy dive, a la the photos in the Wikipedia article on flophouses?
3. Would you say the majority of other tenants were transients?
Anything else you can tell us here on HN to support your assertion that the listing in question fits the definition of "flophouse"?
Thanks.
[1] "flophouses...have been used for overnight lodging by those who needed the lowest cost alternative to staying with others, shelters or sleeping outside. Generally rooms are small, bathrooms are shared, and bedding is minimal..."
As for your tight local control, fuck that. No, you shouldn't get to decide exactly what happens in your neighborhood just because you got there first. You don't own the neighborhood, you own single plot of land, and people who want to buy other plots of land and collectively evolve the neighborhood in new directions should have just as much of a right as you do.
Having had a AirBnB rental two floors down: no, they did not. Most guests are reasonable, but a sufficiently high number are not. Unlike a hotel there’s no way to walk up to someone and tell them to shut the party down, so you’re stuck with talking to the guests which laugh in your face (quote: we’re here to party.) or calling the police. Neither is an attractive option. You can’t just complain to AirBnB and the host won’t - if you know how to reach the host.
AirBnB does about everything to isolate themselves and their clients from complaints.
I think you got it all wrong. This is not a pitch for AirBnB. If anything, the company is creating the problem, not solving it.
>As for your tight local control, fuck that. No, you shouldn't get to decide exactly what happens in your neighborhood just because you got there first.
You're taking what OP wrote out of context and molding it to fit your simplistic thinking. There are laws to protect residential neighborhoods for a reason, and they certainly are not based on "who got here first" rule.
The commenter you're replying to was a member of the Board of an HOA. Meaning that he lived in a condo or townhouse development or a private community. In all of these cases, all of the owners are bound by the common rules of the HOA (which, as owners, they have the right to vote on, amend, etc.), and "tight local control" is pretty much the point.
That's right I don't get to decide because I was there first.
I get to decide because the majority elected me to the association and I carried out their will. I was a representative of the neighborhood and the neighborhood got to decide.
I say "get" but I'm not there anymore, so I don't get to anymore.
You can change the property under the purview of the association. It would be stupid to assert that you cannot. But you must win a vote to do so--and you agree to adhere to the results of association votes by buying into the property and into the association.
Such positive tyranny one must endure. Makes my heart break. But you have a way out! You can always choose...to not buy a place with a condo association or HOA.
(I didn't. Single-family home. Would recommend!)
I think you mean sui iuris (legally autonomous) not sui generis (a unique case).
I'm no attorney but to me it's pretty clear that AirBnB shouldn't be allowed to exist as a business the way it stands today. It's incredible they've made it this far.
I'd love to hear some concrete rebuttal as to why what they're doing is OK besides the "less government/regulation" angle.
So, that gets back to the problem. AirBnB has not solved the problem because the people who are affected are the neighbors of the AirBnB. If the people renting the apartment are not in the apartment itself, they will give the guests 5 stars if the house is clean at the end. However, the neighbors might give that same guest 1 star because they were partying at 3AM, keeping the neighbors awake.
So, we get back to calling in the police and making the place worse for everyone. A hotel has people on the premise to monitor; an AirBnB is not guaranteed this.
They have not solved this problem at all. I lived next door to an illegal AirBNB (all short-term whole-apartment rentals are illegal in NYC).
It was a nightmare, and there's nothing I could do about it. AirBNB does not consider me a customer and has no contractual relationship with me. They didn't provide any way to determine the owner's listing when you know the address, and even if I had, there's no formal way to lodge a complaint against the owner.
The only way a neighbor can take action against their problematic AirBNB neighbor is to report them to the city government.
AirBnBs bring randos into closed, private, residential areas that don't want to have to deal with people partying. Sure, it may just be fun and games for the renters who are on vacation, but for everyone else, who have to deal with it 24/7? It's not fun. It's annoying and rude.
Local governments are the wrong level for those sorts of decisions to be made. You don't have any right to tell your neighbors what to do with their property. Now, it's legitimate for the government to make rules of general application for everyone, but local governments have too much conflict of interest to make these decisions in a globally optimal way.
Japan, which has a national zoning law, is the right model. In our system, we'd apply it at the state level.
In theory, this is how the system is supposed to work here in California. We have the statewide Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which is a kind of statewide zoning that sets targets for cities, which can then zone as they want to meet those targets. Unfortunately RHNA is not enforced, and there are too many loopholes that let cities circumvent their legal obligations. The Housing Accountability Act closes some of those loopholes, but not enough. :(
I agree with you on this, however, Japan regulated AirBNB because renting a room for a short period of time is a pure commercial activity and not allowed in Residential areas.
The catch is that it just doesn't work that way.
I lived, several times, a few doors down to someone who did all this and didn't run an Airbnb. They're just shitty people, and they're going to be shitty neighbors regardless of Airbnb.
I'm sure local governments would love to collect a big check from Airbnb instead of hunting down thousands of tax-dodgers; but doing local tax collection authorities' work for them isn't exactly Airbnb's responsibility.
Not by default, sure, but nothing prevents a local government from creating a law that says, "where an organization takes commissions in connection with its marketing and/or or the facilitation of payment for short-term rentals of property within our jurisdiction, the organization is responsible for collecting any occupancy taxes associated with the transaction."[0]
[0]https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/20...
I personally like the idea of a world as simple as many imagine it, but sadly I don't think it is that simple.
A great man once said: “People don’t think it be like it is, but it do."
She simply didn't give a shit about the noise and trash she generated and all of us had to deal with it. The landlord didn't care either.
The police told me to deal with the landlord, because the noise wasn't at 3AM and wasn't "an event" like a concert. But her music was loud enough to shake my walls such that pictures fell off of them.
The town never returned phone calls. I simply vacated the apartment and told the landlord he would be more than welcome to sue me in court for the remainder of the lease.
Strangely, he never did, but I have a feeling that I would have had a hard time defending myself in court.
Though it is an unpopular opinion, I now feel that single family homes might be peferable to apartment buildings, if the caveat is that "the town and police will not do anything about anti-social behavior" as it is so rightfully called in the UK.
Long term rentals can have problem tenants too, but long term rental owners at least had way more leverage over their rentals than short term (who really in our case didn't give a damn).
Its very straight forward and quick to evict a short term renter for violating terms of the lease(noise violation etc).
Whereas its a lengthy and pricey process to evict a long term tenant in many jurisdictions
I was on the association board, it's kinda thankless job as we had to deal with this house.
We got the usual riot act / pushback from the folks operating that short term rental about how the association was terrible and oh man the government and how we just were protecting hotels (like man, I don't have any connection to hotels...). They tried to organize the other folks who rented out their places (traditional long term rentals) to push us off the board, they actually got several to go along with it, but they failed (it wasn't even close, we had a limit on how many units could rent out at once anyway so they never were going to have enough numbers).
In the end it was just a horrible situation to open up what was a hotel, right in the middle of our association / neighborhood. Fortunately the law was on our side and they eventually sold the unit and left.
Local governments are run by the locals and they should get to decide where businesses like that operate and zone and so forth. The idea that Airbnb should just get to be the almighty "disruptor" and land on your neighborhood with no recourse is pretty absurd at face value, especially when the argument is usually about how folks should have some freedom, but what they mean is their freedom, not the communities.