Slashdot Mirror
Detroit Quietly Bans Airbnb (curbed.com)
A new zoning ordinance that quietly went into effect this week has residents trying to figure out what comes next for Airbnb's presence in Detroit. Many hosts have received notices that the city has outlawed Airbnb for R1 and R2 zoning. Curbed Detroit reports: The new zoning ordinance apparently went through the Planning Commission and City Council in 2017, and went into effect this week. The text added to the amendment states: "Use of a dwelling to accommodate paid overnight guests is prohibited as a home occupation; notwithstanding this regulation, public accommodations, including bed and breakfast inns outside the R1 and R2 Districts, are permitted as provided in Sec. 61-12-46 of this Code." The vast majority of Airbnb units in Detroit are in R1 and R2 districts. These do not include places like lofts, apartments, or larger developments. Airbnb has issued a statement saying: "We're very disappointed by this turn of events. Airbnb has served as an economic engine for middle class Detroiters, many of whom rely on the supplemental income to stay in their homes. We hope that the city listens to our host community and permits home sharing in these residential zones."
Well there goes the big vacation I had planned for beautiful downtown Detroit..
Glad to see the city is looking out for the less fortunate.
Wherever will I stay when I visit "The Paris of the Midwest"??? Dearborn???
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I don't like AirBnB. They drive up home prices and contribute to making home ownership unaffordable. They make it practical for investors to 'park' their money into real estate and keep houses off the market. There's a great case to be made for banning them in any competitive housing market
But isn't Detroit the furthest thing from a competitive housing market? Then again, while a lot of the city is in ruins for all I know the number of actual livable houses might be smaller. Lord knows nobody's going to build there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Blame Quicken Mortgage Loans. They literally own Downtown Detroit.
I bet heavy money that they orchestrated this.
http://www.mlive.com/business/...
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
What problem were they trying to solve? I don't get why they would bother to ban something that wasn't a problem... so what problems were being solved here? It just seems like the summary, and also the referenced article is phrased in a one sided way, or perhaps it really is one sided and this is the result of AirBNB refusing to pay a bribe?
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Because it is hurting their neighbors and the city.
Renting an appartment on Air BnB removes it from the long term rental pool. This increases housing costs for everyone else, due to lower supply.
Renting an apartment to different people every night brings in additional crime risk and noise levels that their neighbors didn't want to be exposed to. And that's not even counting the number of AirBnB houses used for illegal drug deals and wild parties.
Renting these apartments isn't safe. There's a reason why the various safety laws exist for hotels. These apartments don't follow them.
If you want to rent your house, apply for a zoning change to become a hotel. And follow all applicable laws. Until then, no renting.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Detroit has 31,000 empty houses. Wouldn't it just be cheaper to buy a house to stay in for a few days and burn it down or something when you're done with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Better known as 318230.
Look, Uber's business model is based on getting around taxi medallion fees. AirBnb's business model is based on getting around hotel taxes. Did you really think municipalities were going to sit still and let you get away with that? Local governments are going to fight tooth-and-nail against anything that cuts into their revenues... and they have the power to revise zoning laws at their whim.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I've never used Airbnb, but I'm a fan of the idea.
And I do think they innovated. When you get down to it, hotels are in the business of selling trust. The hotel chains are a known quantity. People recognize them and know what they're getting, which is why people up to this point have been staying at them instead of in random homes of strangers. Airbnb's innovation was in figuring out how to aggregate trust effectively, allowing them to become the middleman between a vast untapped supply of rooms and the huge number of people looking for something different/cheaper than what the hotels were offering.
Are they perfect? By no means. I don't like that my sleepy, family neighborhood near a major university becomes a crash pad for random sports fans on game weekends, and I'm not alone in that thinking. Even so, that's a problem that is best addressed through covenants and deed restrictions within the neighborhood, rather than legislation across a city or state. Let neighborhoods that care about that sort of thing sort it out amongst themselves.
Say Detroit residents were pulling a million dollars a year into the city economy this way.
That would generate an average of 7 million dollars a year in economic activity.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So, backpage.com is just a vagina-sharing company?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Where does the city get the authority to tell people that they are not allowed to rent out their homes?
According to the American theory of governance, a government only has authorities that are delegated to it by The People. Well, nobody in Detroit ever had the authority to dictate whether a private individual could rent out his home, so there's no way that anybody was ever able to delegate to the city such an authority.
Whence comes this authority, I ask. WHENCE?!
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- Mao Zedong
The reality is that they can do anything they damned well please until and unless someone with more guns either convinces them to, or makes them through force, stop. It sucks and puts people in general in a position with no really "good" choices, but there it is.
It's bad enough when those in power are generally relatively indifferent, but when they become more aggressively authoritarian, then the really bad shit starts. I think we're at the beginning of, or nearly so, of the second stage...if not already well on our way.
I don't have any answers, all I can advise is to be certain of your principles by doing your own homework and not blowing it off or taking other people's opinions as your own, and stick to those principles *especially* when doing so may be really hard or unpopular to do.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I mean, do you just book a ABnB room downtown to have a place to do your crack or heroin after you score?
Doesn't seem to be much else to do in what's left of that city.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hmm...so, what are the gun laws like in Detroit?
A quick look seems to indicate they are somewhat restrictive, much more so than where I live, so..that might tell you something.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
nobody in Detroit ever had the authority to dictate whether a private individual could rent out his home
Sure they did. They had that authority over their own homes, which they voluntarily ceded to the city whenever they gave it the ability to zone. Whether via its charter or subsequent legislation, that zoning authority would have come from the people themselves, and once you establish a city with the ability to zone, you necessarily also grant them the authority to restrict commercial activities in residential zones, which is exactly what they're doing here.
It's the same principle that allows HOAs and the like to establish deeds and covenants that restrict these sorts of practices. As a homeowner, you agree to abide by those deeds and covenants when you enter the neighborhood, thus ceding your authority in that area to the HOA. In my area, quite a few of the neighborhoods have restrictions on how many unrelated people are allowed to be under one roof, specifically to prevent the 70,000 college students we have in town from turning family-friendly neighborhoods into student housing.
So what?
A property should be able to do most anything they want with their property, including deriving profit from it as much as possible, that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
Gentrification drive prices up too....but if you don't allow that, then you never see neighborhoods excel and grow.
You just can't cater to the lowest denominator all the damned time, and there are ALWAYS winners an losers in life.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I use AirBNB all the time. Has always worked for me, and my hosts have always been nice, ....
I guess you don't have a name that sounds oriental, or Indian, or black.
And FWIW, I'm none of those, and my one and only experience with AirBnB was shitty. After taking my reservation months in advance, including a deposit, the owner backed out at the last minute because all the sudden he was going through a divorce. I had to scramble to book something else at considerably more expense.
Corporate AirBnB's response: oh, that's too bad. Sorry for the inconvenience.
So no thanks. I'm well enough off that a few extra dollars to stay in a real hotel is well worth it.
But now that the price of a house in Detroit has skyrocketed from $1 to almost $100 in some cases, a greater percentage increase than Beverly Hills, the gentrifiers are feeling uppity. No AirBNB in this upscale neighborhood.
If you own property to rent out, you are not poor.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
First and foremost, zoning laws are nothing new. They have been deemed legal. This doesn't speak to the quality, just the legality. Second, zoning laws generally exist to improve quality of life for the residents. I don't think it's wrong for people living in a residential area to not want it to be full of temporary rentals.
R1 and R2 districts in Detroit are for single family homes and two family units. Based on their zoning, even R3 would be a hard sell for allowing temporary rentals. You have to get to R4 before hotels and motels are even permitted on a conditional basis. I'm not saying that airbnb and the like are equivalent to a motel, but I'm saying in community impact it's closer to a motel than a single family occupancy.
A property should be able to do most anything they want with their property, including deriving profit from it as much as possible, that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
So I'll buy the house next to yours and open a disco. I can do "most anything I want", right? During the day, it will be an auto-repair shop, with vehicles pending repair parked in all the on-street parking. If you are in the right state, I'll also operate a dispensary and grow operation.
Zoning laws exist for a reason. Residential is residential, not commercial, for a reason. If you own a house you might appreciate that differentiation.
that's a reason you OWN property in many cases.
That's not the main reason most people own residential property, especially R1 or R2. They own it to live there. That's why it is single and two family zoned. And they want to be able to sell it for a reasonable price when they move away and not have to take a loss because the next door neighbor is operating a business next door.
and there are ALWAYS winners an losers in life.
Some of the "losses" is living in a residential zone and living by residential zoning rules. Although most people would consider it a win considering property values.
Agreed! I mean, who needs clean water!?
Even so, that's a problem that is best addressed through covenants and deed restrictions within the neighborhood, rather than legislation across a city or state.
It is very hard to solve a problem like that using deed restrictions and covenants. Once it starts happening, how do you get a deed restriction added to prevent it? Who enforces a deed restriction in most neighborhoods, anyway? There is nobody who can.
No, zoning at the city level is the only reasonable solution. Local people, and a local office to apply for zoning variances if you have a good case for a different zone applied to your property.
Let neighborhoods that care about that sort of thing sort it out amongst themselves.
Neighborhoods have no legal authority to sort any of that out. If they try, then they are creating special laws for themselves when they are still part of the city as a whole. We have that issue here where some neighborhoods are unhappy that their public on-street parking is being used by the public. "Oh my", they cry, "I can't park on-street instead of my own driveway because the public are parking in the on-street public parking! Something must be done!"
In my area, quite a few of the neighborhoods have restrictions on how many unrelated people are allowed to be under one roof,
This is handled better by zoning, which applies city-wide, and you don't have to have special knowledge of what homes are under an HOA and what that agreement might say. And it won't be the HOA that has to enforce the rules, it will be the city.
This is why R1 and R2 zoning exists, like in Detroit. One and two family residential.
Stay for the Heroin!
I doubt you can find any AirBNB host who consented to this nonsense.
Libertas in infinitum
A good place to get yourself killed.
The Free State Project has been going strong for years now. It's a migration of principled libertarian types moving to one place for greater freedom. We've got a bunch of great legislation passed. We ended permission slips for concealed carry, decriminalized marijuana, removed the authority of the banking department to regulate businesses involved in crypto currencies, and a lot of other stuff. This was just a small number of things that happened last year. We have also fought off government in regards to freedom of protest/speech numerous times and fought for things like toplessness at the beach (actually the people who initiated it were socialists I think, but none-the-less we supported the action after the arrests), etc.
If you don't want the government raping you there is only one solution. You have to gather amongst other like-minded people who are fighting government in one region.
New Hampshire was selected by Free State Project participants because it already learned in the right direction and the vast majority of the population is within an hour of each other making it easy to organize. There are jobs here- and different sorts of living. From the city to the suburbs. It's cheap. You can get a good paying job or even a shitty paying one and still live reasonably well. We have people living on $12 / hour affording property in my town/small city. I know two people who have done quite well on what I can't even imagine living on anywhere else. There is no state income tax and there is no state sales tax. The state also doesn't mandate vehicular insurance (and its why we lead the nation in insured drivers- ie because when you don't force the price of insurance upward people who are poorer can actually afford it).
Not for long! So it's a shame that Detroit has put up a barrier to prevent them from escaping the cycle of poverty.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I guess you don't have a name that sounds oriental, or Indian, or black.
I host a few spare rooms on Airbnb, and none of that matters. It is French people that are the biggest problem. They complain about everything. I had one French woman leave me a two star review because of heavy traffic on the freeway from the airport.
I'll just leave this here. :)
https://youtu.be/K0ug6U26ep0
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you OWN A HOME ALREADY you are not IN a cycle of poverty. Most people spend their entire lives trying (and largely failing) to achieve that kind of wealth and security.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
IANAL, but I don't think the property owners gave up any rights--they did not have the rights to begin with. Property ownership in the United States is fee simple. Under fee simple, the property owner does not have ultimate ownership and the state has a superior claim (allodial title).
"42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Yeah I'm not just going to accept a right-wing think tank's definition of poverty, thanks.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Tons of landlord go bankrupt. Many don't take into account the costs of repairs, thinking that $50 left over from rent after paying the mortgage means they have $50 to spend on themselves. The rule of thumb is 50% of rental income goes back into maintaining the property. And pray to god you don't get a tenant who knows how to game the courts. Taking a year of legal costs to evict a tenant who's been destroying your property and not paying rent that entire time is another way many landlords are crushed.
Owning real estate doesn't magically make you rich. Not every piece of land is worth something. You always have taxes to pay and a building may have to be demolished before anyone can the land again Few people buy those types of lots.
Renting is more expensive than owning.
Exactly, which is why people who already own are richer than people who have to rent. People who have to rent have a large ongoing cost that subtracts from their income, that people who already own don't have, so all else being equal, owners are far richer. You can be a renter and have massive mountains of debt too. The owner's home may be in such disrepair that they'd rather sleep in their car, but at least they have a place to legally park their car without having to pay for it; the would-be renter in the same dire straits can't even sleep in their car in peace.
I make more than about 75% of individual Americans, but someone who owns a house outright and makes minimum wage can afford the same lifestyle as me plus infinitely more peace and security knowing that at the very least they have a place they are allowed to exist without having to bribe someone every month just for that privilege.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Even if you have $0 left over from rental income after paying the mortgage, that still means you got someone else to pay your mortgage for you. Someone else is paying off your house; you get a free house out of it. Unless your average costs from all the rest of that (maintenance, legal fights, etc) are high enough to completely negate the mortgage subsidy you're getting from your tenant every month, renting out the property is still just a font of free money for you. Maybe not directly money you can be spending right now, but money you will have in equity in a house that you will own free and clear some day, something that you would otherwise need to be funding out of your own pocket, so that money you would otherwise be paying out of your own pocket toward that end is money you can be spending right now instead.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Under fee simple, the property owner does not have ultimate ownership and the state has a superior claim (allodial title).
What in these links do you think supports this?
Reminds me of Amazon reviews that rate something low because the seller or the shipper screwed up. FFS, that's not applicable to the quality of the product
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The sharing economy could allow people to make use of extra capacity they have anyway, or help justify the purchase of something they'd also use themselves
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
In general, doing business online can often mean dealing with amateurs unwilling or unable to run things smoothly, and maybe the would-be host is an example of that.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Presumably the wiring and plumbing was taken for scrap. Ruining soemthing for a small percentage of junk value is a prime example of destructive criminal behavior. Too bad, since scrapping makes sense as an economic incentive for recycling trash.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Noise and location are important in rating a place to stay. Sorry if non Americans are better at using the full range of scale instead of feeling obligated to give 5 stars for adequate service.
Even so, that's a problem that is best addressed through covenants and deed restrictions within the neighborhood, rather than legislation across a city or state.
No! Deed restrictions are evil. Once you sell a thing, it should no longer be yours to control, especially if you're dead. All the things you want deed restrictions to control are better handled by a general law which addresses everyone, because in the best case deed restrictions have to be handled on a confusing case-by-case basis where each one has to be argued over. If you want easements, noise limits and so on, these are by far best handled by ordinances.
I do not think that a municipality should have the power to stop people from renting out their houses for parties. I do think that it should have the power to break up or shut down parties which are disruptive to others, whether those people live there or not. I do think there should be a reasonable standard for what is permitted, in terms of noise limits, cutoff times, etc. But finally, I also think that municipalities should provide space for such events at cost if they prohibit them in people's homes. An affordable event center is a useful civic building.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
AirBNB did nothing as far as "making it easy" - craigslist existed in the same capacity since forever. AirBNB did exactly zero actual vetting until forced to by local regulation. Horror stories continue, and your neighbors likely hate you.
I built a vacation house knowing that I would want to rent it out for a lot of the time - I just don't have the time to be there enough yet, and I figured I could offset a good chunk of the mortgage.
I started by using craigslist and VRBO; craigslist got me not many enquiries, and no bookings. VRBO got me quite a few enquiries from people who clearly hadn't read my listing, and after lots of emailing I got no bookings. After a month of that, I tried AirBnB, put the listing up on a Sunday, and by Monday evening I had two confirmed bookings. Cancelled VRBO, don't even bother with craigslist anymore. Unlike VRBO, I didn't have to think about how I'd get a check from the guests, it's all handled for me. That was 2 years ago, I've had pushing 30 guests come through and I have no complaints about AirBnB and neither do my neighbors - it's a beach town, there are lots of rentals everywhere.
AirBnB certainly did make it easy - can craigslist control your calendar and handle payments? Set pricing based on that calendar, with weekly discounts? Do they allow you to see reviews of your prospective guests? No. AirBnB, in my book, earns their fee.
Euclid v. Ambler
Just drink 'beer''.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I fail to see how using a property for AirBnB is different than using a property for longer term rentals....what difference does the length of lease matter?
And if you want to get picky...if something is zoned residential, guess what....people ARE residing in the homes in question, just for different lengths of time.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not in cities! You are talking about rural poor.
50% back into maintaining the property?!? That's insane. Typically 10% (15% tops) of the rental income is sufficient for general maintenance and saving for larger multi-year repairs such as fences, flooring, and roofs. If I have a property that is a bit older, I'll generally save 20-25% tops for maintenance to be on the safe side. This is for single family rentals. For Airbnb properties it depends on demand. A high demand property requires a small percentage for maintenance but more for routine cleanings etc. A normal demand property requires long term saving for big items but property usage is lower decreasing normal wear-and-tear and extending the life of appliances, fixtures, etc.
The biggest PITA for us is property taxes. Renters get pissed when we raise their rent due to tax hikes but our city continues to bend us over year-after-year in tax increases. We've tried fighting it with no success. Here is a recent example. We bought a house for $95K. Did 45K in repairs. Rent is $1850K a month. Generates a reasonable profit after expenses. A house down the road sold for $300K and another recently sold for $275K. Our property "increased" in value, as far as the government is concerned, to $225K from a prior year $170K (added over 1K in taxes). Not to mention the city next to us is trying to annex our property which will add another 1% to our tax rate. Not that they have not offered any additional city services (trash, water, sewer) as part of the annexation and local police and fire have already stated they don't have the resources to cover our area.
So, who does the government hurt? Our renters (aka, the middle class). Why? Because their rent just went up $60 a month because of the tax increase (we absorbed the rest in lost profits.) The increase and proposed annexation has also made us consider selling the property which would also hurt our renters. Gotta love those unintended consequences that the government never seems to think of.
Beautiful, dynamic Detroit attracts floods of tourists from around the world. Travel agents call it the "Paris of the Midwest". And now, these people will have many fewer places to stay in the Motor City. Another case of foolish government officials making things more difficult for small business and for the public in general.
Some people have made the claim that you can avoid such issues by forcing the city to accept your property as "private" property, as opposed "residential", "commercial", etc.
The city is essentially stripping these people of their rights via legislation, and rights are considered a form of property. This is thus equivalent of the city stripping someone of private property without due process. Shouldn't they be able to sue to block this legislation?
They consented to it when they bought a house in an area that fell under zoning laws.
Real estate always comes with various strings attached. It's the buyer's duty to figure out what those are before they buy.
Great. I agree. I own a gun. I want to shoot you with it. After all, I should be able to do anything I want with my property.
Oh, you have a problem with that? Welcome to the real world. You have to play nice with others, which means accepting restrictions. Don't like it? Too bad.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Great. I agree. I own a gun. I want to shoot you with it. After all, I should be able to do anything I want with my property.
You can shoot your gun all you want, but you can't shoot him because he isn't your property. That would be doing what you want with someone else's property, not your own.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Unless, of course:
There are plenty of ways to be a poor property owner.
I fail to see how using a property for AirBnB is different than using a property for longer term rentals....what difference does the length of lease matter?
Ask any landlord. Transient populations differ from longer-term ones.
And if you want to get picky...if something is zoned residential, guess what....people ARE residing in the homes in question, just for different lengths of time.
No. Residential means people live there, not just visit for a day after paying someone. That makes it commercial.
Also economically depressed cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, etc. But for the most part you are correct.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
In any functioning democracy, guns don't matter. Votes matter. The guns are there behind it all, but they don't vote.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's the sharing economy, when it works well. There's also the people who own cars and houses and pretend to be part of the sharing economy. At least for AirBnB, that's where the main trouble comes from.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
By that definition, every place in Los Angeles should receive no better than 2 stars due to traffic.
I'm a law student. This is exactly what we learn in first-year property law. Nobody actually owns any land, they own an *estate* in land. The distinction is crucial and GP is right that we eliminated the fee tail and now only have the fee simple and fee simple determinable (in its myriad forms).
The US government actually owns the land, which it received from the Crown at the conclusion of the revolutionary war. The Crown actually purchased most of this territory from the Indian tribes, and stole or conquered the rest from the French.
But even if you own a home, you're still bribing.
The bribes just go to Taxes, and mortgage payments, and HOA Costs, and the savings you keep for when your water heater explodes or your roof needs to be replaced.
Property taxes, mortgage interest, and HOA fees I'll give you. Maintenance costs aren't bribing anyone into just letting you use a thing, they're just the cost of repairing it, like if your car breaks down. You're free to keep using the house with a leaky roof or no water heater, which is still more than someone with no house can say.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I disagree with your "in turn increases construction".
From my experience price increases simply causes current homeowners, with rapidly rising house values, to fight tooth and nail to prevent any new housing being built. they fear increased density and losing their View/lifestyle. Complete NIMBY results
California is almost a case study on this: Heck, in LA the local AIDs organization is fighting a housing project next door to its headquarters.
So you agree there's restrictions on what I can do with my property- I can't do anything to someone else's property with it. So you agree that my rights to my property can be restricted. Great. Now understand we can and will restrict it for other reasons if we see it in the best interest of society- just like we restrict me from using it to kill you for the best interest of society.
Piece of advice- when you argue from absolutes like that you look like a particularly dumb 2 year old. Reality is more complicated and more nuanced. Find an argument for why your ability to rent it out is more valuable than what we gain by preventing it and you'll have a case. Just whining libertarian principles doesn't do anything but preach to the choir- and nobody believes in libertarianism as a working way of running society.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
By that definition, every place in Los Angeles should receive no better than 2 stars due to traffic.
Depends on the windows though. You can have thick windows that stops most of the noise. If she rated by noise outside, yeah okay, that is nit-picky in a big city.
So you agree there's restrictions on what I can do with my property- I can't do anything to someone else's property with it.
No, there are no restrictions on what you can do with your property. There are restrictions on what you can do with other people's property, which is not even close to the same thing.
Now understand we can and will restrict it for other reasons if we see it in the best interest of society- just like we restrict me from using it to kill you for the best interest of society.
"Society"—meaning anyone whose property rights are not being infringed—has no standing on the issue. Your actions are not limited by "society's" whims, but rather by the fact that if you deliberately infringe on someone else's property rights then you cannot rationally object to others doing exactly the same thing to you. Other people respect your rights because you respect theirs. You forfeit that protection at your own peril.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Then I'm going to shoot you. Because there's no restrictions on what I can do with my gun. I don't have to restrict what I do with your property, I'm just using mine. If you don't like it, either you have to restrict what I can do with mine, or get very good at dodging bullets. Even the idea that I can't do anything to your property with mine is a restriction on mine. Sorry you're too stupid to understand basic logic.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?