Portland Does Little when AirBnB Hosts Rent Multiple Apartments(wweek.com)
wweek.com
Portland Does Little when AirBnB Hosts Rent Multiple Apartments
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-23993-hotel_california.html
41 comments
couldn't AirBnB just restrict rentals to 90 nights/year in portland? or couldn't the city just look for rentals that are available for more than 90 nights/year?
Yes, but AirBNB would prefer to skirt regulations as long as possible in order to grow revenue and market share.
See: Uber.
See: Uber.
To expand upon your point, AirBNB, much like Uber, can sit back a bit and pretend that this is just the fault of a couple of careless users as opposed to a systemic problem. This is the "brilliance" of their business models -- at least for now, they can claim that these people aren't their employees, that they're independent contractors or some such, so it's not the company's fault. They get all of the upside with limited legal liabilities (for now). The long play is to have an exit before the legal side of things catches up with them--the legal systems are slow, but AirBNB/Uber's growth rates are pretty fast. The current stockholders can cash in their billions with the exit, and it'll be the CEO's/shareholders' problem in the future if/when the legal system catches up to them.
Yes, but then people will just hop from one service to another. 90 days on Airbnb, 90 days on VRBO, etc...
Well, you can live in your place while renting part of it so that wouldn't work.
AirBnB collects that information as well ("entire place", "private room", "shared room".) They make no effort to filter out illegal listing, in spite of the fact that a decent (but not perfect) implementation would be utterly trivial.
They are willfully leading a massive conspiracy to violate the law and the company and its executives ought to be held liable.
They are willfully leading a massive conspiracy to violate the law and the company and its executives ought to be held liable.
Entirely trivial to implement the coding, and entirely a nightmare to implement and maintain the database which stores this information on the current laws of every locality in which airbnb operates.
That's why they get paid the big bucks. These aren't some guys in a garage, they have a $13B valuation. They can afford to hire some people to implement and maintain that database.
In any event, we need not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. They can start with the low hanging fruit. In NYC they reportedly make millions of dollars a year. Certainly that justifies the cost of adding a line in a database? (<30 days, whole place, apartment).
In any event, we need not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. They can start with the low hanging fruit. In NYC they reportedly make millions of dollars a year. Certainly that justifies the cost of adding a line in a database? (<30 days, whole place, apartment).
Any other (big) international business follows local regulations and gets fined when they don't. That it is a nightmare: deal with it.
I find it surprising how acceptable it is that certain company can ignore so many regulations, while another company has to abide by them. Unfair competition.
I find it surprising how acceptable it is that certain company can ignore so many regulations, while another company has to abide by them. Unfair competition.
But trivial to make the data available in a machine-readable format to the taxing authorities and let them do the legwork. Which is actually required, per TFA:
"In addition, the city requires short-term rental companies like Airbnb to list the addresses of their rentals—information that could help the city crack down on hosts who don’t live in their apartments. The company has been reluctant to share information."
"In addition, the city requires short-term rental companies like Airbnb to list the addresses of their rentals—information that could help the city crack down on hosts who don’t live in their apartments. The company has been reluctant to share information."
Not really. Large companies have to do that sort of thing all the time. Amazon collects sales tax, which is even more complicated. Airbnb is certainly sufficiently well funded to be expected to be able to deal with this sort of thing.
> “It’s theoretically unenforceable unless you have someone sitting outside the door and checking the box that ‘Yes, they stay here 270 days out of the year,’"
What about taxes? It has to be illegal to claim one place as your primary residence for tax purposes then another as your primary residence for AirBNB purposes.
What about taxes? It has to be illegal to claim one place as your primary residence for tax purposes then another as your primary residence for AirBNB purposes.
It is. If you're claiming a homestead exemption, and then renting the place out, that's illegal. If Portland's property tax agency is online, and you had the AirBNB address, you could easily confirm this (as the exemption would be listed on the property index page).
I will never understand the desire to control one's neighbors' property.
I don't care who owns it and it's none of my business how they use it.
I don't care who owns it and it's none of my business how they use it.
There are lots of extreme examples one can come up with to show why caring how your neighbors use their land is warranted. Think dumping toxic waste, using their land for as an outdoor shooting gallery at all hours of the day, etc. Just about everyone understands that one can not and should not be allowed to do anything they please with the land they own. The question is where to draw the line.
This is where elections, the court system, and societal norms come into play. Make your voice heard at the local level. Get involved. Convince your neighbors that AirBnB is a good thing and shouldn't be any of their or your business. Perhaps your view will prevail with regard to AirBnB.
I suggest though that saying that how land is used is none of your business (or mine) is not the right method. It makes you sound extreme. There are far too many people on the planet and far too many people with nefarious intent to let everyone do as they please with their land.
This is where elections, the court system, and societal norms come into play. Make your voice heard at the local level. Get involved. Convince your neighbors that AirBnB is a good thing and shouldn't be any of their or your business. Perhaps your view will prevail with regard to AirBnB.
I suggest though that saying that how land is used is none of your business (or mine) is not the right method. It makes you sound extreme. There are far too many people on the planet and far too many people with nefarious intent to let everyone do as they please with their land.
Try being seriously under-unemployed in a recession for 5 years, watch a single demographic group of "I've got mine, so the hell with everyone else" entitled brats make tons of money in SF playing casino capitalism with mostly fake valuation companies that don't make any money, and then watch them cash their chips in, go into a city with a major housing crisis and push up prices so high through real estate speculation that nobody actually living there can afford to live there anymore. It's really, really easy to understand why people are mad about it, whether you agree with them or not.
Real estate has gone up 30-50% since I moved to Portland 4 years ago, so of course, so have rents. 10+%/yr is a crazy number. Most people didn't make that much more income in the same time frame. I have friends that live in a house and rent a part of the house on AirBNB, and it helps them, and for that I am happy. But I'm torn about whether it's positive overall for the city to let out-of-state management companies buy out what's left of Portland's (very, very limited) supply of real estate and flip it for guerrilla hotel usage.
I'm not saying AirBNB should be illegal, but Portlanders generally don't want to become California's vacation home, they don't want to copy the dog-eat-dog jungle that is modern San Francisco, they've never been an Ayn Rand libertarian whatever, and their strong tradition of progressive, heavily interventionist government planning (for things like, say, affordable housing) are being put in jeopardy by these disruptions.
It's all quite understandable, again, whether you agree with it or not.
Real estate has gone up 30-50% since I moved to Portland 4 years ago, so of course, so have rents. 10+%/yr is a crazy number. Most people didn't make that much more income in the same time frame. I have friends that live in a house and rent a part of the house on AirBNB, and it helps them, and for that I am happy. But I'm torn about whether it's positive overall for the city to let out-of-state management companies buy out what's left of Portland's (very, very limited) supply of real estate and flip it for guerrilla hotel usage.
I'm not saying AirBNB should be illegal, but Portlanders generally don't want to become California's vacation home, they don't want to copy the dog-eat-dog jungle that is modern San Francisco, they've never been an Ayn Rand libertarian whatever, and their strong tradition of progressive, heavily interventionist government planning (for things like, say, affordable housing) are being put in jeopardy by these disruptions.
It's all quite understandable, again, whether you agree with it or not.
I live in Santa Monica, which by one metric has the most expensive hotel rates in the state of California [1]. The result? Multiple people either buying or renting multiple properties to AirBNB them and the availability and price of residential rentals beginning to approach what I left behind in SF. I know several people who are essentially employed fulltime as managers for absentee renters, or rent out 3-4 apartments scattered around the city and live in whichever is getting the least interest on AirBNB. A few people get caught and evicted, but for the most part this behavior continues unimpeded.
Looking for an apartment two years apart in the exact same neighborhood (fall 2012 and fall 2014) I saw an incredible difference completely unrelated to any other economic change in the area. I'm not sure what else to attribute it to.
1 -http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/New...
Looking for an apartment two years apart in the exact same neighborhood (fall 2012 and fall 2014) I saw an incredible difference completely unrelated to any other economic change in the area. I'm not sure what else to attribute it to.
1 -http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/New...
To be fair, 4 years ago was the depth of the housing crisis and real estate was highly depressed. While 10% appreciation per year is evidently unsustainable, it's quite reasonable to expect that sort of appreciation coming out of a disruption like that. And it probably doesn't have much to do with SF money.
Your neighbor's actions have an affect on your home, including day to day comfort and how much your home is worth. HOAs exist for a reason.
I'm not sure I'd want to live next to an apartment that constantly has new guests, any of which could do who knows what to the building.
I'm not sure I'd want to live next to an apartment that constantly has new guests, any of which could do who knows what to the building.
Two issues.
1. "HOAs exist for a reason." They exist under the pretense that they maintain or increase property values. There is no evidence that this is the case. I have spent well over 100 hours researching this, and was unable to find conclusive data to prove this (and used said data to help communities dissolve their HOAs).
2. Short term rental restrictions fall under city/local (and sometimes state) government ordinances, which are enacted to allow for reasonable housing costs for local citizens.
I'd highly recommend Portland's local government get in touch with the NY Attorney General's office to get their recommendations on how to persuade AirBNB to maintain compliance with their local laws.
[+] http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Airbnb%20report.pdf
1. "HOAs exist for a reason." They exist under the pretense that they maintain or increase property values. There is no evidence that this is the case. I have spent well over 100 hours researching this, and was unable to find conclusive data to prove this (and used said data to help communities dissolve their HOAs).
2. Short term rental restrictions fall under city/local (and sometimes state) government ordinances, which are enacted to allow for reasonable housing costs for local citizens.
I'd highly recommend Portland's local government get in touch with the NY Attorney General's office to get their recommendations on how to persuade AirBNB to maintain compliance with their local laws.
[+] http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Airbnb%20report.pdf
Why would government need to investigate how to persuade? Just fine them and/or shut them down, possibly go after the people running the company.
> Just fine them and/or shut them down, possibly go after the people running the company.
And New York has experience in exactly how to do this, hence my recommendation! Don't walk the trail of broken glass someone else already has.
And New York has experience in exactly how to do this, hence my recommendation! Don't walk the trail of broken glass someone else already has.
Relax, enjoy your home, enjoy your neighbors, enjoy their guests.
So you are against other people having freedoms because they might do something bad? Isn't that the definition of FUD?
Societies (of ten through their governments) restrict all sorts of behaviors that affect others in various ways. My neighbor (in a residentially zoned area) can't decide to open a gas station on their property. You can argue about various laws and rules at the margin but it takes a pretty anarchist perspective to argue that no such rules should exist.
It's pretty extremist to say that I'm making a case for anarchy. Nobody's saying that we should change zoning or open illegal drug rings. People are wanting to rent out apartments to short-term tenants. How is that remotely close to being a dangerous cartel that needs to be defended against?
People are upset that other people are better off than they are, and using the extra financial leverage to treat an apartment as a temporary vacation home. Jealousy, plain and simple.
People are upset that other people are better off than they are, and using the extra financial leverage to treat an apartment as a temporary vacation home. Jealousy, plain and simple.
Jealousy, plain and simple.
Not even slightly. People are upset because homes surrounding theirs are being rented out to short term tenants that do not care about the long or even medium term future of the home and it's surroundings.
If you lived in an apartment building filled with tourists drunkenly stumbling around the stairwells, breaking fixtures and otherwise ruining the shared facilities, you might appreciate the concept.
Not even slightly. People are upset because homes surrounding theirs are being rented out to short term tenants that do not care about the long or even medium term future of the home and it's surroundings.
If you lived in an apartment building filled with tourists drunkenly stumbling around the stairwells, breaking fixtures and otherwise ruining the shared facilities, you might appreciate the concept.
I do live in an apartment building. It's pretty telling that you assume that I can't possibly relate to the common man, and if only I was in their position, I would be more sympathetic.
I am in their position. And I am anything but sympathetic for that very reason.
I am in their position. And I am anything but sympathetic for that very reason.
You are suggesting that you would have no problem with random groups of people waking you up at night and destroying shared property inside your apartment building?
Reply to untog:
Of course I'm not ok with people destroying things. But I don't think that having a law making subleasing illegal prevents that. You're acting as if the ability to do what I want with my property makes it a foregone conclusion that evil things will happen.
Of course I'm not ok with people destroying things. But I don't think that having a law making subleasing illegal prevents that. You're acting as if the ability to do what I want with my property makes it a foregone conclusion that evil things will happen.
You're acting as if the ability to do what I want with my property makes it a foregone conclusion that evil things will happen.
No, I'm acting as if the ability for an unlimited and unknown number of complete strangers to enter my apartment building makes it a foregone conclusion that evil things will happen, which is pretty much true. Even if the vast majority of AirBnB customers behave, the odds are that there will always be an outlier that will ruin it.
No, I'm acting as if the ability for an unlimited and unknown number of complete strangers to enter my apartment building makes it a foregone conclusion that evil things will happen, which is pretty much true. Even if the vast majority of AirBnB customers behave, the odds are that there will always be an outlier that will ruin it.
One of the main purposes of zoning, for example, is (to use your words) to restrict "the ability to do what I want with my property." Would every use restricted by zoning harm me? Probably not. But some unit of local government has chosen to enact some set of restrictions that local residents believe will serve to reduce potentially harmful activities.
None of this is perfect of course. And rules can get pretty silly especially when you start talking about homeowners associations and historical districts and the like. But in the aggregate, these laws serve a useful purpose.
None of this is perfect of course. And rules can get pretty silly especially when you start talking about homeowners associations and historical districts and the like. But in the aggregate, these laws serve a useful purpose.
Couldn't you extend this logic to complete anarchy?
You are creating a straw man argument here.
Since you'll never understand it, no explanation will make sense to you. But I'll try anyway.
What I do affects my neighbors because many things do not stop at the property border. This can include smells, visual impact, water runoff, sound, chemical waste, and risk of fire.
For example, if I decided to run a dry cleaning business at home then my neighbor might be affected by the additional street traffic (a shared resource), the noise of customers coming in and out, and the smell of chemicals. Plus, I dispose of the waste chemicals by pouring them into the ground, which seeps into my neighbors' well water. They might not like that.
If I decide to start a fertilizer factory (I'll call it 'West Fertilizer Company II'), then my neighbors might be worried about explosions destroying their home. If I decide to raise cattle, and build a waste lagoon on the edge of my property then my neighbors might be concerned about the smell and the possibility of overflow, both as waste and erosion. If I decide to test my air raid siren collection at 3am then I suspect that my neighbors might have a problem.
There are several ways to handle this. One is as an easement system. When you purchase your land, you do not have complete say over what happens on the land. For example, there may be a right-of-way which allows people to cross your land in order to get to the beach. You must also allow people to use the sidewalk, and you are required to keep it clear.
So you can think of your neighbors as having certain easement rights, which you agreed to when you purchased the land. Just like the airport has purchased the air rights above a certain height, in properties near the airport, your neighbors also have acquired certain rights. For an example, from http://www.englandairpark.org/sites/default/files/docs/Broch... :
> The Avigation Easement grants a right-of-way for the free and unobstructed flight and passage of aircraft through the airspace above, over and across the surface of the property, together with the right to cause such noise, vibration, odors, vapors, particulates, smoke, dust, or other effects as may be inherent in the operation of aircraft, and for the use of said airspace by aircraft for approaching, landing upon, taking off from, maneuvering about or operating on the Alexandria International Airport.
As you can see, some of these rights can be on the market, but others are illiquid.
However, there are a lot of things which can transgress the property lines. It's too many to enumerate explicitly. Rather than having billions of bilateral neighbor agreements, with billions of opportunities for loopholes, and the need to upgrade those agreements over time as problems arise, we have a unified code and legal framework which handles most of them.
What I do affects my neighbors because many things do not stop at the property border. This can include smells, visual impact, water runoff, sound, chemical waste, and risk of fire.
For example, if I decided to run a dry cleaning business at home then my neighbor might be affected by the additional street traffic (a shared resource), the noise of customers coming in and out, and the smell of chemicals. Plus, I dispose of the waste chemicals by pouring them into the ground, which seeps into my neighbors' well water. They might not like that.
If I decide to start a fertilizer factory (I'll call it 'West Fertilizer Company II'), then my neighbors might be worried about explosions destroying their home. If I decide to raise cattle, and build a waste lagoon on the edge of my property then my neighbors might be concerned about the smell and the possibility of overflow, both as waste and erosion. If I decide to test my air raid siren collection at 3am then I suspect that my neighbors might have a problem.
There are several ways to handle this. One is as an easement system. When you purchase your land, you do not have complete say over what happens on the land. For example, there may be a right-of-way which allows people to cross your land in order to get to the beach. You must also allow people to use the sidewalk, and you are required to keep it clear.
So you can think of your neighbors as having certain easement rights, which you agreed to when you purchased the land. Just like the airport has purchased the air rights above a certain height, in properties near the airport, your neighbors also have acquired certain rights. For an example, from http://www.englandairpark.org/sites/default/files/docs/Broch... :
> The Avigation Easement grants a right-of-way for the free and unobstructed flight and passage of aircraft through the airspace above, over and across the surface of the property, together with the right to cause such noise, vibration, odors, vapors, particulates, smoke, dust, or other effects as may be inherent in the operation of aircraft, and for the use of said airspace by aircraft for approaching, landing upon, taking off from, maneuvering about or operating on the Alexandria International Airport.
As you can see, some of these rights can be on the market, but others are illiquid.
However, there are a lot of things which can transgress the property lines. It's too many to enumerate explicitly. Rather than having billions of bilateral neighbor agreements, with billions of opportunities for loopholes, and the need to upgrade those agreements over time as problems arise, we have a unified code and legal framework which handles most of them.
I don't understand your not understanding. Could you explain? I don't see a desire to preserve the value of one's own property, or certain qualities of the environment in which one lives, as difficult to understand, if that's what you mean.
I had a neighbor who was doing AirBnB style rentals. I moved to this property because it is quiet and offers me some privacy.
Most of the problems that arise in our building are from short-term rentals who have no respect for the property or the tenants. They often leave trash, vandalize, and misuse the property to fit their short-term needs. Tenants and owners are subject to rules and consequences which helps moderate behavior.
While I don't have an issue with the principle of the matter, most short term rentals seem to be done illegally and there's little oversight over these guests. To get into this building I had to submit to a credit, criminal, and background check. If I wanted to live next to a new person every other week, I would have chosen so.
Most of the problems that arise in our building are from short-term rentals who have no respect for the property or the tenants. They often leave trash, vandalize, and misuse the property to fit their short-term needs. Tenants and owners are subject to rules and consequences which helps moderate behavior.
While I don't have an issue with the principle of the matter, most short term rentals seem to be done illegally and there's little oversight over these guests. To get into this building I had to submit to a credit, criminal, and background check. If I wanted to live next to a new person every other week, I would have chosen so.
Actually, property owners and tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quiet_enjoyment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quiet_enjoyment
So it's OK with you if your neighbor rents out his property to a sketchy couple that open a meth lab?
...or your neighbor could open a meth lab and you may never know about until you find out that half your building has cancer from inhaling the fumes.
We have condominium boards and neighborhood regulations in place so that if or when there is bad behavior there's recourse against those actions (yes, I know most condo boards would have regulations against renting. Most of the times they wouldn't get involved unless there was an issue though).
One of my neighbors rents out their place on Airbnb almost every other weekend. The tenants are almost always well behaved... unlike an owner that lives on my floor that I've had to have the condo board send a letter to because of late night parties.
We have condominium boards and neighborhood regulations in place so that if or when there is bad behavior there's recourse against those actions (yes, I know most condo boards would have regulations against renting. Most of the times they wouldn't get involved unless there was an issue though).
One of my neighbors rents out their place on Airbnb almost every other weekend. The tenants are almost always well behaved... unlike an owner that lives on my floor that I've had to have the condo board send a letter to because of late night parties.
It doesn't matter if they're a sketchy couple, and local law enforcement would provide for removing any meth lab (or other illegal activity) and the associated people.