Slashdot Mirror
Amsterdam Using Airbnb Listings To Identify Illegal Hotels
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that might dampen the popularity of Airbnb's site for Amsterdam, the city government is now using the accommodation listing service as a source of tips about illegal rental property. 'Airbnb is never a smoking gun,' said Jan-Jaap Eikelboom, spokesman for the city of Amsterdam, regarding use of the service. But the government does use Airbnb and its competitors to compare its own nuisance data with street listings on sites like Airbnb, and has been doing so for a while, he said. This combined information can come in handy when investigating suspicious buildings and can help with spotting illegal activity, he said."
In a rare turn for me, I'm going to guess they're more interested in making sure commercial places of accomodation are up to code for numerous health and safety reasons.
In short,
There is a huge shortage in affordable housing in Amsterdam and there is very little space to remedy this. Add to this that about 10% is owned as speculation objects by criminals with no tenants. Having unlicensed hotels and hostels on top of the 100 or so licensed hotels in these residential areas are a huge burden on the city and its inhabitants and also unfair competition to the businesses that do play by the rules.
Only last year there was a deadly shootout in an unlicensed hotel at the end of my street. If you are a US citizen that is probably a daily occurrence for you, but here in Amsterdam it is kind of a big deal.
Normally I'd agree with the free market approach. But having visited Amsterdam, I can see why they wouldn't want to accommodate it. Pretty much the entire city can be traversed by walking/biking (there are a *lot* of bikes there). If they want to keep it that way and slow the growth of the city, then they want to maximize utilization of the buildings that are there.
Tourists rental apartments which sit empty half the time waste space, and drive up prices for residents by adding tourists to the demand side of the equation. I can see the city's logic here. Divide the real estate economy into two separate groups - residents and tourists. Confine the tourists to hotels so the market prices for tourists' housing expenses are decoupled from the market prices for residents' housing expenses. That way as more or fewer tourists visit, the price for hotel rooms will rise or fall. But they won't affect the price of residential apartments in the city.
The market approach solves the higher housing prices by sprawling the city outward, expanding its size. Real estate on the periphery has (initially) lower prices, thus encouraging people to move outwards rather than stay in the center. But much of the charm of Amsterdam is in how accessible the entire city is by foot or bike, and the lack of skyscrapers. If the city wants to preserve that, then segregating tourist housing from residential housing makes sense.
You what?!! Want to do something with your own property WITHOUT government approval!!!
The majority of Dutch people live in government regulated housing and pay tiny amounts of rent. This kind of housing reduces the amount available to the free market and pushes free market prices sky high. It's very tempting for people in regulated housing to sub let it ( which is illegal ) and make massive profits doing so. It's not unusual for someone to pay 200 Euros a month on rent and sub let for 1200 Euros a month.
Anyone building a new residential building in the Netherlands is obliged by law to give a percentage of it up to government regulated housing which pushes the prices for the non-government regulated part of that building up too.
The Netherlands is messed up in ways American's could not dream of.
So let me understand. Your argument is that rents go up in a desirable location and that is some how a problem? I just don't see it. The property owners many of whom probably worked very hard to get where they are certainly gain from the appreciation and deserve to do so. The argument about the locals not being able to live in their own city is just silly.
If they have to commute wages will go up because employers will have to cover the cost of commuting or they won't be able to hire qualified, let alone quality workers. The place will either become a less desirable tourist destination as a result and property will depreciate until locals can afford to move back in; or wages will continue to rise and people will move back to the city. Either way a new equilibrium will be reached.
The entire thing just smacks of an entitlement problem. "Sob sob, I can't afford to live in the neighborhood I want to with my part time job serving coffee." So what..
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
We've really gotten to the point where food inspectors are part of the world collectivist left-wing conspiracy?
Too much AM radio.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, we merely have gotten to the point where people like you kill any political discussion by setting up one strawman after another.
After signing away over US $70k for the accommodations, I found out we were all breaking the law, and worse, if we were found out we would all be kicked out immediately with no refunds.
If you're going to play travel agent, knowing the local laws is usually a first step.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.