Slashdot Mirror
Indiana Considers Prohibiting Cities From Banning Airbnb (usnews.com)
"Indiana's cities and towns wouldn't be allowed to put their own restrictions on companies such as Airbnb under a proposal state lawmakers are considering," reports the Associated Press. Slashdot reader El Cubano writes:
The proposed legislation would prohibit local government in the state from banning Airbnb rentals by their residents. There are exceptions for home owner associations (which will still be allowed to ban rentals in their communities) and 180-day per year cap.
It is interesting to see something like this being considered at the state level. Supporters say that they are trying to prevent knee-jerk regulations and to protect an innovative emerging market. At the same time, local authorities are upset that they will no longer have the option to make the determination for themselves.
The bill has already been approved by the Indiana House, as well as a key committee in the Indiana Senate.
It is interesting to see something like this being considered at the state level. Supporters say that they are trying to prevent knee-jerk regulations and to protect an innovative emerging market. At the same time, local authorities are upset that they will no longer have the option to make the determination for themselves.
The bill has already been approved by the Indiana House, as well as a key committee in the Indiana Senate.
I don't think it's overreach, it's simply banning overreach on the local/municipal level. This is moving control of the issue to the HOA's, and thus the people.
Most laws that move the decision making closer to the people is good in my eyes.
She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
I know that the hotel industry feels threatened. They whip the local community into an uproar that AirBnB is going to lower their property values. Which is not the case. Instead these innovative companies bring money in by having people spend money in towns that they would not normally visit. Places that are on the outskirts of say a Disney or Dollywood would just be drive through cities. Now they become micro-attractions because more people are staying in there.
My wife and I stayed in an AirBnB over the summer. We loved it. It was quiet neighborhood with no annoying ice machine get used repeatedly at 2am in the morning. The person who shared his home with us provided us a small DVD collection and library for entertainment. We could have went to the big attractions but decided to stay in town. There was a mall and bowling alley, and a few small parks for us to walk around.
But my comments isn't just limited to AirBnB. Its things like Lyft and Uber, even the Netflix and Hulu of the television world. Cab and broadcast TV companies don't want to evolve because it means changing their comfortable corporate structure. They've become so rigid and undisciplined that they can't change. Or rather they're disciplined, but only their own bureaucracy so they canâ(TM)t react to changing market. I applaud the idea of putting limits local regulations in the instance of limiting new innovations.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I think it's terrible. Localized government should have the power to make decisions about what they want to allow. If the residents don't like it then some of them can go into politics. We need more involvement with politics anyway. AirBNB has serious ramifications for the way cities and towns work. If it chews up all the low-cost housing, where are the burger flippers going to live? It simply cannot be permitted to operate unchecked in a world without sensible rent control systems which effectively ban it anyway, or at least severely limit it.
My favorite AirBNB restriction is the one where you can only AirBNB part of a house. Someone has to be living there. If nobody lives there, then it's not a home and it's not sharing. It's just a hotel or boarding house or short-term rental, and the patron is simply renting it. This has opened up room rentals in houses in some cities. It also helps protect the owner of the building, because there's someone there to call the cops if the renters start trashing the place, but many of them don't actually seem to care about that. I presume they're hoping a renter burns the place down so that they can cash in on their insurance. I wonder what happens when they find out that their insurance company won't cover their commercial venture...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you're a small town, Airbnb might not be a problem for you. I like in Reykjavík where there have been big problems with it. We're a place that's been experiencing very rapid tourism growth. In the pre-Airbnb days, if someone wanted to fill the tourist demand for housing, they'd build a hotel, and in the process end up with rooms for hundreds of people. Nowadays they just rent out residential apartments. Always in the most convenient locations in town. Residents can't compete with the amount of money tourists spend per night, so residents get pushed out of town. This creates resentment.
Beyond that, companies deciding that they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else does always gets on my nerve. If you want to operate a hotel, follow hotel regulations. I agree that there should be "lower-overhead" regulations for little "starter" hotels (aka, anyone who wants to fill the B&B niche). But you don't just go into a market and act like the rules don't apply to you.
IMHO.
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
This is a common bit of talking point I hear a lot of lately, usually by small government folks who think it's an easier sell than just abolishing government and letting the rich and powerful do Whatever The Fuck They Want (tm). The reality of the situation is that the smaller you can group your citizens, the less power any particular group will have and the politicians will be less expensive to purchase. Rules and regulations will by nature cover fewer people at a time, and it is more likely they will be able to find an underrepresented area where there is no one locally interested in stepping up and running government properly. It's a variation of the divide and conquer technique. The reality is a strong national government and consistent rules for everyone is the most efficient way to do things and the fairest for everyone.
The 180 day limit is kind of meaningless. A lot of hotel rooms in the state probably come in under that, given that the national average has fluctuated between 54% and 64% over the past decade and Indiana isn't exactly known as a tourist or business destination, so would probably come in well under the average.
Envelopes of cash all around.
I guess you never heard about vacations. How about house swapping? How do you deal with that.
By not charging money. That would be the actual "sharing" economy. All it takes is a website that is monetized in some fashion other than charging people for the swap. They're not prohibiting people staying in the house. They're prohibiting a variety of people staying in the house for money. They're not even prohibiting people staying in the house for money, but they are setting regulations on how long they can stay there for, how you treat them, and what their obligations are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
having lived in a HOA in the past, its not something i will ever do again. to many rules on how to live my life by people i dont know nor care about. no thanks
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same