What costs are being socialized by Airbnb?
Well that does not actually answer my question. What services? Water, electricity and basic services like that are paid for and not more expensive for temporary residents. Police maybe? Do temporary residents require more police involvement? You are implying you have an answer to my question and maybe you do. I would like to hear it.
> Raising the cost of housing stock
No, this is not a cost imposed on others, because that is not what imposed means. If you want to buy housing you are free to do that and so are others. If you want to prevent other from competing with you, that is asking them to subsidize you.
...seriously?
1) Shifting tax burden onto residents and legally operating hotels. By evading things like the hotel tax, the per-tourist revenue goes down. 2) Who do you think owns the airports and all the other infrastructure transportation? Hell, La Guardia had a 50 year old control tower before they started on the new one. 3) What do you think pays for all the additional safety regulations and inspections for transient residents? [e.g. Fire codes for housing them are different than a residence.]
> No, this is not a cost imposed on others, because that is not what imposed means. If you want to buy housing you are free to do that and so are others. If you want to prevent other from competing with you, that is asking them to subsidize you.
Effectively breaking the zoning rules [hotels are zoned differently than residential] is an imposition.
I think the underlying issue here is you don't care if it has negative economic effects on other people or the city government because "free market".
1) Tax burned is a cost imposed by the government, presumable to cover the cost of externalities. I am not trying to be a jerk when I say I would like to hear what externalities you are thinking about here. 2) This might actually be a real answer. Assuming of course that airports operate at a loss and recoup that loss with things like hotel tax. 3) Safety regulations are not a cost imposed by Airbnb and illegal hotels tend not to have extra inspections.
Zoning rules are again, not imposed by Airbnb. They are imposed by the government presumably to cover some externalities. I can't figure out what those unnamed externalities are, so I asked.
> I think the underlying issue here is you don't care if it has negative economic effects on other people or the city government because "free market".
Again, no. When someone complains about negative effects, but fails to mention what they actually are I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask what those negative effects are.
I'd like to see the evidence that people would not visit NYC if they couldn't stay in Chelsea.
> NYC government also seems to think they'll be able to put the genie back in the bottle -- they're wrong. Airbnb has proven this is a huge market -- if they go under, they'll be replaced by a solution that is harder to regulate.
They didn't prove anything. We already knew flophouses were a viable businesses in the absence of effective regulation going back to the early 19th century. Businesses that privatize the profits and socialize the costs tend to be profitable.