Slashdot Mirror
Cities Struggling To Crack Down On Airbnb Renters (latimes.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
A California man has been charged with eight misdemeanors for renting several apartments under his own name, and then subletting them all. "Apartments in Santa Monica that might fetch $3500 a month as ordinary rentals, are worth three or four times that on a daily or weekly basis," reports one newsweekly, and the subletter notes that he only received two years of probation plus a $3,500 fine, "what one of my properties makes in a month."
On Wednesday three prominent U.S. Senators "called for a regulatory probe into whether short-term rental websites such as Airbnb are taking housing away from long-term renters and pushing up prices," but the number of Americans planning to use Airbnb this summer has apparently already doubled since last year.
The Hotel and Lodging Association of Alaska is complaining that the state's renters "are not required to follow the same state and federal safety mandates that are required for other hotels and lodges creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers." But it seems like currently the only pushback is coming from local and city officials, like the short-term rental rules that Airbnb is currently fighting in their home city of San Francisco. For example, in Maine, the owner of one of Portland's 425 rentals units is now fighting a city order "demanding that he stop renting out part of his home through Airbnb. "Portland has a limited staff to enforce zoning rules, so it comes down on the most egregious cases, said City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Grondin."
I laughed at the quote from the City Hall spokeswoman. "It's kind of like speeding on the highway. You know it is illegal, you do it anyway, and you get caught."
The Hotel and Lodging Association of Alaska is complaining that the state's renters "are not required to follow the same state and federal safety mandates that are required for other hotels and lodges creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers." But it seems like currently the only pushback is coming from local and city officials, like the short-term rental rules that Airbnb is currently fighting in their home city of San Francisco. For example, in Maine, the owner of one of Portland's 425 rentals units is now fighting a city order "demanding that he stop renting out part of his home through Airbnb. "Portland has a limited staff to enforce zoning rules, so it comes down on the most egregious cases, said City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Grondin."
I laughed at the quote from the City Hall spokeswoman. "It's kind of like speeding on the highway. You know it is illegal, you do it anyway, and you get caught."
I laughed at the quote from the City Hall spokeswoman. "It's kind of like speeding on the highway. You know it is illegal, you do it anyway, and you get caught."
Your an idiot EditorDavid.
When I speed, I'm not forcing people with smaller cars off of the expressway and onto dirt roads, far far away.
These people are driving up the rents and prices of homes in communities, while not being restricted by the laws that hotels/motels/holidayinns have to follow. So for those who want decent housing at decent pricing, they have to live far away, or in worse areas.. driving the next people to live farther and worse-er.
Crank up the fines and forbid people from renting at more than one location.
Start at $10,000 per violation.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
not like the landlord is there every day. some of them own property and live in another state and simply collect the rent
"Only we should be allowed to profit off of people by charging them lots of money in order to have a place to live! You can't do it too!"
If by "little people", you mean folks that can buy 425 properties, you and I have very different definitions... The article is all about the abusing that people with plenty of money are doing to a system would have worked if it was only done on a small scale.
In Soviet America, land owns you!
Well, it sure is pushing down prices for hotels. Which is probably why crony capitalists get all pushed out of shape about this. As for housing prices and the housing shortage, AirBnB isn't responsible for that, it's zoning laws, rent control, and the interference of the federal government in the mortgage markets. But, hey, leave it to the usual suspects (Warren, Feinstein) to first wreck people's lives and then blame "big evil corporations" for the mess they created.
then maybe Airbnb should collect the local hotel tax since that is how many cities bring in revenue?
Isn't this the standard way to do business in America? I mean buy something and resell it for a profit.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Be it Uber or AirBNB, the pattern is the same — the old way of doing things is struggling against the technology-enabled new way.
We lived through this, when automobiles replaced horse-drawn transport, we are witnessing it now...
It is decidedly no less "safe" than the overpriced "real" hotels/motels. And it is only unfair because of the costs of government-regulations, which those "real" establishments have always passed on to their customers.
With the immediately-available customer ratings offered by the new companies, the government regulators are simply no longer necessary. If "fairness" is a concern, the hotels should be left alone — and unregulated — too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't know the situation in the US but landlords are not all 1-percenters. A lot of them are just "little people" investing.
OTOH the guy subletting apartments to AirBnB may very well end up in the 1% : $3500 per month per apartment is a lot.
The reason housing prices are high and there is a housing shortage in desirable areas are simple: government keeps pushing up demand for housing in such areas through various housing subsidies (low income rent programs, Section 8, government support of mortgages), while at the same time discouraging the creation of new supply through price controls (rent control, affordable housing unit requirements, special taxes on developers) and regulations (zoning, usage restrictions, etc.).
I know, dear Elizabeth, you're just a greedy lawyer and a rabble rousing politician, but please, learn some basic economics: you and people like you are responsible for the housing shortage. And restricting the ability of people to rent out their places for short periods, as on AirBnB, will make the housing shortage worse. In fact, the reason AirBnB is likely so popular in the first place is because AirBnB hosts don't have to deal with all the other rental regulation bullshit people like you have created; in a free housing market, AirBnB would be much less attractive, since landlords could get similar income without all the risk associated with an unpredictable succession of short term renters. So, if you restrict AirBnB rentals, people will probably either leave their apartments empty, or they will convert them into expensive luxury condos. See, Elizabeth, you can certainly stop people from engaging in some economic transactions by wielding your big senatorial stick, but you cannot force them to engage in economic transactions against their will.
uber is a fake taxi, avoids taxes, and avoids regulations and requirements designed to protect the public.
airbnb is a fake hotel, avoids taxes, and avoids regulations and requirements designed to protect the public
I'd say that if you own more than one property you're already a medium person.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The cities and towns who want to regulate this and Uber and the like are doing so not because there is some sort of crisis or need for regulation. By their own admission, they do not have control over it now and yet there are very few reports of problems, which strongly suggests there aren't many issues.
No, they don't want to solve anything. They're just mad that somebody is doing something without asking permission and paying for licenses and other crap. An awful lot of government is devoted to making people ask for permission to do things and making them pay fees to get that permission.
If people realize they can do things just fine without permits, then all hell will break loose of people doing stuff on their own for free! How can bloated bureaucratic governments survive and justify their own existence if people just DO stuff?
Sig for hire.
Just like a number of other "sharing" companies! What really galls me is that law makers stand around like deer in headlights. Arrest and JAIL the senior executives, investors, and board members of these "sharing" companies- where the ONLY sharing that goes on is the obscene profits made by the foregoing groups! Scumbags!
Shit like that is part of the problem, people aren't involved in their community and everyone's too busy chasing the almighty dollar. Maybe cities should start cracking down on absentee landlords instead of Airbnb. Keep property ownership local.
This is definitely one of those cases where technology has rendered moot the underlying reality that forced the need for regulation in the first place.
I disagree, technology is simply providing a new way for people to evade the laws and recreate the same problems that -- long ago -- caused the laws to be created.
Now, there is some virtue to "shaking things up", but the underlying issues here are not actually computational at all, they are issues about monetary-incentives, damage and accountability, and various tragedies of the commons.
Except for the part where Portland is going after a guy for renting out a room, yes.
I just have a problem with those people who rent their place 52 weeks a year. IMHO, 2-3 weeks a year is making extra money without causing problems. Renting 52 weeks a year is causing problems in the neighborhood without doing due diligence, paying license fees, and pissing your neighbors off.
The free market is the base natural state of any economy. Control, legislate, regulate all you want, but the free market interprets socialism as damage and routes around it.
I hear homes made by non regulated builders are AMAZING places to live... Welcome to the world of "We got your money...sucks for you if it's shoddy construction and starts falling apart after 5 years!"
Neither do neighbors who chose to buy and rent in a residential district and partake in the benefits thereof, including a reasonably slow-changing population of neighbors.
Then they can live in a community with an HOA that prohibits transient rentals. Otherwise, they have no right to be telling me what I can do with my property.
Yet they have enough money to gas up their SUV and drive to Starbucks everyday.
In my city:
Cost of a Starbucks latte: about $4
Cost of a gallon of gasoline: about $4
Cost of modest-sized house: about $4,000,000
How is any different than renting out a beach house?
Its all well and good to say "but someone will build more supply" and that may be true in some cities but its not always possible. But try building any kind of housing anywhere near San Fransisco for example.
Why would it be not allowed? Think of the economic stimulus. If there's a lack of housing then new houses will be built!
And the safety argument is a bit false. All those safety measures have been instated because of the many people that can be housed--and get killed by a fire--in a skyscraper hotel, not a family home...
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Maybe there is no problem at all. Except for the big hotel owners who now encounter some competition.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
As someone who rents I dislike the idea of AirBnB pushing up prices. But as someone who travels AirBnB has been the best thing in years. Hotels are fine if you're on your own, but I usually travel with my family. Staying in a slightly run down home is way better than a very nice hotel or holiday home when your kids are going to run around in it. Not to mention seeing into other peoples lives and houses.
I travelled around the US with my family and our 3 cats. I know some hotels let you have pets, but the limit is usually 2 and they don't like cats. Didn't have trouble finding places on AirBnB usually within a 4 hour drive of one another. I know that it would be possible before AirBnB existed, but would have required a lot more planning, and our trip was entirely unplanned.
Oh? Then how come you are completely unable to refute a single one of my points? You didn't even try. (You need not answer, because I know the answer - you can't.)
Nor do I need any control, because it's in the goverment's interest to maintain standards. Quite the opposite for AirBNB, which has every reason not to be too honest.
That's the difference between you and me - I have no need to take a chance. (And given how riddled with fail Amazon's reviews are, how stupid do you have to be to even bring them up?)
So if you can't afford to buy a house in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world, then there is just no point in investing at all?
Your words, not mine.
I have relatives nearing retirement with $0 in IRA/401k, living in a trailer park, who think exactly the same way. But they can always find the money to go to Starbucks and buy the latest iPhone.
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
Sounds like a plan. Of course next time you book wirh Airbnb and the "palace with ocean view" turns out to be a shithole and the hosts asks for an extra $200 cash, I'm sure your reviews on Angie's List will help righting that wrong, since bad reviews on Airbnb are bad for business and usually fade in the digital void. You could also put up a Facebook page or post a rant on Craigslist.
There's been great success stories with deregulation and the free market, such as energy (Enron), investment banking (Lehman Brothers and others), airlines and more. All big wins for customers - except of course all those people who lost their 401(k) or their house or who had to pay obscene power bills or had to wait for hours in suffocating planes parked on the runways, but I guess those morons simply forgot to check Yelp and Angie's List.
lucm, indeed.
The "natural state" is me hitting you and taking your stuff.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What would it be?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Doesn't matter whether they're regulated, most contractors for developments go with the cheapest products and then when you start noticing the problems (5-10y down the road), it's already past the 1y warranty.
I currently live in one of those DIY kit houses from the early 20th century, this thing is rock solid and besides the regular wear and settling, no major structural issues.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
This is an example of the type of thing commercial rentals are inspected for that AirBNB homes are not:
https://medium.com/matter/livi...
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Post your address. I would like to render pig carcasses upwind. Don't worry, I'll be incorporated and cash out long before my offal pond floods your property.
Or do you actually believe in zoning regulations? Okay then, let's zone long-term housing differently than short-term housing.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
That's fascinating (and sad). I don't suppose you could point me towards a news story about it?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Now and again one of our neighbors is caught sub-letting his apartment.
The complaints come from all sides --- because this undermines the security and stability of the entire apartment block. The location is ideal for small children and retirees and rentals are affordable. The sub-lets have been nothing but trouble. The kind that has you dialing 911.
So they want to limit the free market to allow only unattractive rentals?
Face it, there is a need for short term high rent rentals, not for long term low rent ones. People who can't find a long term need to search for areas, where they can find one.
There are very very few members of the public who don't like or have a problem with AirBNB. Any government that bans them is clearly doing this on the behest of the hotels and other such businesses. This is a perfect example of government officials working for the rich elites and not for the people who voted them into power and pay the taxes that let these thugs have jobs.
Why do we continue to put up with law after law after law that is not in our best interests.
Is AirBNB perfect, nope. But any problems can be regulated to solve any problems for the greater good. For instance if someone had three houses on a quiet street that they AirBNB'd for party houses, then you deal with that issue. But a blanket ban is just anti citizenry which would be an action only take if there was some inducement or incentive for the lawmakers.
The "natural state" is me hitting you and taking your stuff.
Which is exactly what is happening here. In deference to several thousand years of progress though the weapons of choice to hit you with are either armies of lawyers or, in this case, new laws (or rather new interpretation/enforcement of existing laws). Plus ça change.
OMG, the "little people" are making money!
Well, I don't think that is really the issue here - there are two things at play: the fact that the hotels are not happy about having "unfair" (= "any") competition, which hard to sympathise with, since the hotel trade appears to be booming in many, from the basest "budget" hotels to the perversely luxurious ones. At least, new hotels seem to be built on a regular basis wherever I go. But the more serious issue is that the professionals that are needed by the cities, like nurses, doctors, teachers, and a long list of fairly ordinary people, are finding it hard to impossible to get any accomodation in the city, and rent sharking or whatever the term may be, is a serious issue.
And as for "the little people" (we aren't talking about fairy folk, I assume?) - if you can afford to rent 10 appartments, then you will have been able to raise the deposit money for that, so you are probably not so "little" after all, you are just a rent shark, basically a predator causing damage and not caring a bit about it.
So, you want every home (remember every home is a potential airbnb place) inspected by the Governments?
Homes ARE inspected by the government. I just had my hot water tank upgraded and the township came out to inspect the work to make sure it met code. If I sell the house I'll have to have the government come out to inspect it. Not the common theme here - when money is exchanged the government gets involved to make sure things are done properly. It is easy to show there is a compelling public interest in them doing so. There are a lot of laws that apply for rental properties and governments enforce these to ensure the safety of the occupants and that protected classes are not discriminated against and a few other public interest concerns. These laws didn't appear out of thin air.
Your family comes, a foreign exchange student comes, a refugee comes, a co-worker comes, a visitor of any kind comes. How do you prove that You aren't an airbnb-er.
You don't need to. Strawman argument right here. Nobody is arguing against your right to host guests on your property for free. The discussion is whether you can charge them rent without incurring assorted other obligations to ensure the safety and well being of your paying "guests".
Do you want to pay Taxes to have a guest?
If you are receiving payments for that "guest" to stay at your residence then you already owe taxes on that income. That would be true even if AirBnB didn't exist. ANY income you generate is taxable and that includes property rentals of any sort. Don't take my word for it. The IRS will be happy to clarify the matter for you.
HOA power varies from state to state. Here in VA, we've been told that it costs, on average, over $60k for an HOA to take legal action. Had the original developer left yet in your case? Typically, they control the HOA until the development is completed. As for the dues, is that really different than a tax?
Just another day in Paradise
"protecting rights"
You mean like the right to choose a residential neighborhood that is not full of transients? Zoning is all about protecting the rights of people who own land - to ensure stability and compatibility of uses. People who are staying for 1-7 nights have very different lifestyles/uses than those of a year or longer. And if you start allowing incompatible uses into a residential neighborhood, you are interfering with the economic activity of everyone who holds their home as a significant portion of their net worth.
That sword cuts both ways.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You are not allowed to earn income with your own property anymore. All must work for the state.
And if you didn't have to have your water tank replaced, the old water tank was "Grandfathered" in, and was about as safe as the new replacement, except for the fact that now you've had to have a government inspector involved, paid additional "fees" and you likely delayed repairs because of the added expense.
Nope. The inspection was 100% free of charge and took very little of my time. The old tank was inspected at the time on it's installation which coincidentally was the last time money changed hands for it. The old tank was safe because it was installed to code and inspectors are VERY useful in ensuring that contractors build to code. The old tank was not as safe as the new one because it was starting to malfunction (pressure releases, pilot going out, etc) I'm guessing you haven't dealt with contractors much but a lot of them will cut corners at every opportunity because it increases their profits. Inspections are required by law in most places because contractors have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted and sometimes this results in dangerous problems. Contractors are about as trustworthy as a used car salesman as a general proposition.
Getting Government approvals doesn't actually help, and may actually be problematic.
You have that 100% backwards. Getting government approvals doesn't hurt and sometimes it proves helpful. Sometimes you have to pay for the inspection but that's not a bad thing either. You'd be an idiot to have significant work done on your house and not have it inspected by an independent third party. I've had contractors try to cut corners on work done to my house and the inspector made them do it right. I'm actually quite glad to have code inspectors available to me since I'm not an expert in a lot of areas of home building.
Sounds a lot like the city I grew up in, below the poverty line. Here was my secret to success:
1. Get scholarship to private high school, because otherwise I'd have ended up at "gang ridden public school" (Mom knew how to motivate with fear).
2. Drink tap water. No Brita either, just run the water for 2 minutes at the beginning of the day to get the brown out (and 30 seconds before drinking it the rest of the day).
3. Use public transport. There's a stigma that it's just for poor people, but (1) it's for everyone and (2) even if you don't believe that, YOU'RE POOR
4. Lunch and dinner were anything I could get for under $4. I shared cafeteria fries with an equally poor scholarship winner.
5. Use financial aid to go to a state university in a cheaper part of the state, work part time through school (thanks Dad for those drunken rants about "why the hell haven't you gotten a fucken job!" all freshman year!), and get a useful degree. Almost done paying that off. Only party when there's free beer.
6. Establish life in cheaper area where a modest size house costs $140,000. Live with a roommate in a college-quality apartment and use public transport for years after getting a real job.
Granted none of that was planned but by simply looking around and realizing how easy it is to end up poor and destitute, the right motivation and decisions should just come to you!
If you're running a business out of your house, it's still your responsibility to pay all applicable taxes. Has there been any implication that people haven't been doing that? To me, that's mostly a distraction from the main topic. If someone is collecting/paying...why should the city give a damn?
Just another day in Paradise
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
Depends what level of poverty we're talking about, My own mom lives off of less than $12k/yr social security, and still finds ways to waste cash on gifts, and junk she doesn't need. I'll admit to being a bit of an enabler, as I pay some of her bills. But, ShanghiBill has a point. If you've got disposable income, you should be investing it in yourself before buying cigarettes, booze, etc., etc. Many would hit the lottery, and end up broke again in under a year...it happens all the time (70% from a quick google). We do a poor job of educating people early in life on basic economics.
Just another day in Paradise
Which will be great for a few years, then a few hotels will burn down killing hundreds, and big hotel chains will go bankrupt in the resulting environment of fear. Very rich companies like Hilton and Mariott pay their senators' election campaigns big bucks to make sure that doesn't happen, and if it eliminates their competition that's a bonus.
tl;dr: Hotel corporations want those regulations. They also want everyone else to have to follow them.
Are you fucking kidding me? Some guy dies on a rope swing and you think that's a reason to not allow people to rent out their homes (or rooms within their homes)? How stupid.
If you really cared about this, you'd be campaigning for the government to go to every single house in America and inspect every rope swing in someone's back yard. The guy could have died just the same by visiting a friend's house and trying out the rope swing in his back yard, but somehow that's not a problem, it's only a problem when the house's owner rents a room on airBnB?
Well that's a load of sh!t. The home ownership rate has been over 60% for generations. A quick google search shows 60%+ since 1960.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you want to be taken seriously don't make sh!t up.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
That would be true in parts of NYC as well. But go less than a hour away from midtown and the price of real estate drops considerably. You can find 2 family houses for less than $300,000 and 3 family for less than $500,000.
Be willing to work weekends fixing up your house and in a few years you too can be calling a fu(king rich pr!ck by self-important a$$holes.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I read it as the guy owns one of Portland's 425 rental properties, in Maine. So he doesn't own 425, he owns one of the 425 that exist.
Why would it be not allowed?
Well, let's start with the contract. If you rent an apartment or condo, there may be a subletting prohibition. In that case it would be illegal for you to sublet as the man in the example has listed. Why this occurs is rather simple: before renting you a property, the landlords/owner vetted you first; they did not vet anyone you chose to sub-let.
Think of the economic stimulus. If there's a lack of housing then new houses will be built!
Er? If there is a lack of housing, all sub-letting does is drive up the price of current housing. For example, that guy took 8 apartments and raised the rents for the next person. Do you have any idea how much money it costs to build a house? Secondly, if there is a lack of housing, it's partly because there are few properties to buy to build a house. In a crowded urban area like Santa Monica, there's not a plethora of available, cheap land just waiting for someone to buy.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't suppose you could point me towards a news story about it?
Of course not. When an AC describes a wildly implausible scenario that is almost certainly fabricated, asking for a citation is generally pointless. Apply some critical thinking: If this actually happened, the media would have hyped it to the max, it would have been a HUGE story, and everyone would have heard about it.
While I am not sure about HOA laws about repo, I can say Florida Condo boards can foreclose (repo) a property for lack of payment. the source I cite does mention HOA's but I can not validate that side of it. http://www.gad-law.com/condo-h...
if you see me, smile and say hello.
it's rather factual what you are saying, buying a 3 family and living in 1, helps reduce your total cost every month. and if you add up the basic labor you do: gutter cleaning and roof scrubbing 300 to 600 yearly 2 days, lawn maintenance weekly 2 hours weekly based on 52 weeks $3000 a year ( snow winter, lawn spring + summer, leaves autumn ). patching driveway 2 times a year, 300.00 ... quick numbers showed 3600 on the low-end savings. heck if you got vegetable garden and a few other things, I can place savings at 5,000 per year.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Both of these guys are operating in industries where government action is preventing the open market from operating. They benefit from the Congressionally established rules of cronyism.
Trump can keep filing bankruptcy as often as he wants and keep operating., a luxury that Congress has made available to the well-connected.
Shkreli sells generic drugs, which because they are off patent, can be manufactured by anybody. But because Congress has made it illegal for Americans to buy low-cost prescription fills from the same countries where we can buy electronics for steadily decreasing prices, Shkreli can by expending relatively little capital, monopolize the market on generics. The very same drugs that Shkreli has monopolized here trade everywhere else in the world for pennies a pill.
"If you rent an apartment or condo, there may be a subletting prohibition. In that case it would be illegal for you to sublet as the man in the example has listed."
Um.... No. AFAIK it would not be *illegal* - it would be a breach of your contract with the landlord. Illegal means criminal, contract breach is civil and between the two parties only.
AC was talking about investment properties, which is a little different than a home you own and live in.
I don't agree with AC, as most people invest in 401k, which is an investment, but he was talking about something different than the stat you are quoting.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But don't stop posting from Dimension X
What? Length?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Anyone can file bankruptcy and keep operating, it is a benefit offered to people and corporations alike.
Many businesses file for bankruptcy, and trying to slam Trump for two out of hundreds of companies he has owned just shows your lack of knowledge of business.
Quit being that moron and educate yourself, not every company succeeds, and when you, for a business, buy businesses that are failing in order to make them profitable, occasionally you will not succeed at it.
I don't like any of the presidential candidates (there are currently 4, not 2), but slamming Trump for the occasional failures, while ignoring that Hillary didn't have any attempts makes you look like a partisan moron.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm just pointing out that liberals keep citing both these examples as market failures, when they are examples of gaming government regulations. In a free market, neither of those hacks would be available.
So are you saying that you want everyone that visits santamonica to stay in a hotel?
No I did not. Please stop insinuating what I said. What I said was someone who rented out 8 apartments for the sole purpose of renting out on AirBnB has merely raised the rent for people who actually live there.
That would make hotel prices go up wouldn't it? How would anyone stay in santamonica then?
Evidence contradicts your conclusion. Hotel prices do not change with the amount of AirBnB availability generally. It changes with surge pricing due to events happening in Santa Monica.
I find it nice that I can rent a house for the weekend instead of stay in some stuffy hotel, don't you ? It's a totally different experience. I may even want to live in that city once i try out a few neihborhoods. I have a question: My friend wants to come from New York and stay with me for a week in santamonica. He offered to chip in some cash in exchange for me letting him stay. Do I tell him "no sorry that will drive the rent prices up in santamonica"? Haha
You letting your friend stay with you is completely different than you renting 8 places for the sole purpose of re-renting them. You've taken 8 residences that someone could have used. As for your preferences, that's what they are: Your preferences.
Look man, people have been renting their places out short term long before you ever lived in santamonica.
You missed the point about 8 residences, didn't you?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.