<i>"Unfortunately, a lot of other people have problems paying their rent or mortgage. 75% of Airbnb hosts in San Francisco say that their income from Airbnb helps them stay in their homes, and 60% of the Airbnb income goes to rent/mortgage and other housing expenses."</i><p>C'mon Sam, you can do better than this. Just about everyone's income helps them pay their rent or mortgage regardless of where it comes from. And let's not pretend (a) parkinson's law doesn't exist or (b) people allocate specific income sources to specific expenses. If you make more, you spend more. If you have to pay your rent on the 1st, you write a check from your bank account–you don't pull cash out of your "AirBnB income" envelope.<p>And, BTW, I've never rented an AirBnB in SF who wasn't (a) a young professional that could afford to live there or (b) someone 40+ who clearly had lived in SF a long time and bought prior to the spike in prices. These statistics and stance just don't compute for me.<p>Look, I love AirBnB and I think it's a great service. But it's just that–the best short-term/vacation rental service. Nothing more. I'm a little tired of them (and their apologists) acting like they're some kind of cultural juggernaut.<p>I always knew they'd have huge political forces to answer to (my friends and I would often wager who was more likely to succumb to governments: Uber or AirBnB). They're going to have enforce bed taxes. They're going to have to police municipal laws, HOA regulations, and more. And after it all shakes out, maybe this isn't as profitable of a business as people thought (for both AirBnB and hosts).<p>Of course, like Uber, they'll likely take the lobbyist route to fight this (maybe they already have). But this is a case where a little humility would go a long way IMO. Would it be so hard for AirBnB or Sam to say "yeah, there's a housing issue and we might even be part of the cause. so let's work together to find a solution or compromise."?
I have trouble feeling sorry for AirBnB with this. It has had numerous opportunities to put forth a reasonable view on how this should all work and AFAICT, has not.<p>First, most (all?) HOAs and landlords forbid short term rentals, and for good reason (short term renting is generally disliked by neighbors).<p>Second, city zoning policies are implemented for a reason, again, a good one. Residential neighborhoods generally prefer little or no commercial activity as well as inhabitants who care about the neighborhood.<p>I have not seen AirBnB weigh in reasonably on these important issues. For that, it's possible it deserves Prop F.
> In the past year, only about 340 units in SF were rented on Airbnb more than 211 nights ...<p>For the purposes of Prop F, statistics that seem more relevant are<p>- how many units are rented more than 90 nights (the current law) [1]<p>- how many units are rented more than 75 nights (as proposed by Prop F)<p>When I see AirBnB supporters focusing on a number that doesn't seems as relevant, it feels like spin to me.<p>> The median number of trips per unit was 5, and mean was 13.3.<p>Interesting shift here to talking about trips per unit, rather than nights per unit. Back in 2012, the average stay was 5.5 days [2]. So does that mean that the average number of days per unit is 71.5 (5.5 * 13)?<p>Also, according to the Chronicle [3], out of the 5,459 listings in 2015, "205 hosts have three or more listings. These super hosts account for 4.8 percent of all hosts, but control 993 properties — 18.2 percent of Airbnb’s local listings." I didn't see anything in Sam's post or the other anti-Prop F posts that discusses this.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-vote-on-airbnb/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnet.com/news/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/#1" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/...</a>
<i>> Airbnb has recently been attacked by San Francisco politicians for driving up the price of housing in the city.</i><p>The high price of housing in San Francisco is caused by one (and only one) thing: NIMBYism.<p>If supply is constrained and new high-rise developments are held back, there will always be higher prices and a distorted market.<p>In reality, Airbnb doesn't have any measurable effect on the price of housing. (Still, it may help alleviate the situation slightly for some people living in the city.)
<i>> Unfortunately, a lot of other people have problems paying their rent or mortgage. 75% of Airbnb hosts in San Francisco say that their income from Airbnb helps them stay in their homes, and 60% of the Airbnb income goes to rent/mortgage and other housing expenses. Making it harder to share your home in San Francisco may make it impossible for some of these hosts to afford to stay in their homes and in this city.</i><p>This is why Airbnb helps maintain untenable pricing levels. There's more money to go around and rates can keep going up with no bearing on vacancies.<p>A rental management company with 20% vacancies wouldn't be so quick to raise prices; but, as long as the tenants magically come up with ways of catching up with increased prices, the prices will continue going up.
Am I the only one who is furious about the cost of housing in SF, and the apparent lack of action by city government? It was my dream to live in SF since I was a young kid. Unfortunately, the average working professional cannot possibly afford to buy a home. Finding affordable rentals, is not an option either.<p>How much longer will the professional, middle class populous, put up with their savings being drained by over inflated housing costs? Sadly, it seems far too many people see SF as a professional vacation place, and not a home. When I moved there for work, I also moved there to live. I wanted to do so in a sustainable way, which means saving money every month for retirement, and possibly buying a home. That's a pipe dream in SF, even with a nationally competitive salary.<p>I cannot figure out whether there is blatant city corruption, or a complete lack-of-caring about the middle class. Or is it that there aren't enough developers trying to develop?
> In fact, Airbnb worked with economist Tom Davidoff of the University of British Columbia and found that Airbnb has affected the price of housing in SF by less than 1% either up or down.<p>Airbnb <i>commissioned</i> this economist[1]. That doesn't necessarily mean his conclusions aren't credible, but commissioned research that supports the agenda of the company that commissioned it should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Is there any independent research Altman can cite?<p>> Unfortunately, a lot of other people have problems paying their rent or mortgage. 75% of Airbnb hosts in San Francisco say that their income from Airbnb helps them stay in their homes, and 60% of the Airbnb income goes to rent/mortgage and other housing expenses. Making it harder to share your home in San Francisco may make it impossible for some of these hosts to afford to stay in their homes and in this city.<p>What about their neighbors? If I'm paying good money to rent an apartment or I shell out big bucks for a new condo, why should I be forced to live in a hotel-like environment because a neighbor decides to violate the lease or association CC&Rs/bylaws?<p>It doesn't matter how well-intentioned a host is. It's callous to have sympathy for hosts who are violating leases and condo association association CC&Rs/bylaws and no sympathy for the neighbors their selfish behavior negatively affects.<p>[1] <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2015/03/30/airbnb-pushes-up-apartment-rents-slightly-study-says/?mod=WSJBlog" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2015/03/30/airbnb-pushes-u...</a>
<i>> The mean revenue per host was about $13,000 per year</i><p>Otherwise known as the income that one would have previously obtained by renting a room to a permanent resident. The big difference with Airbnb is that the service is removing potential rooms and roommate situations from the market. I'm not going to say whether Airbnb is a good thing as honestly I'm leaning toward it being a net benefit. But to say it has not made finding a place to live permanently in places like SF and NYC more difficult for 1st time and early in life renters is difficult for me to agree with.<p>All progress has a price. And often that price is worth the benefit. But let's not pretend there are not people out there that will be worse off in the short term.
This atrocious bill is yet another example of how the biggest unicorns are facing a kind of challenge they aren't built to solve: the political one.<p>Until now, the rise and of tech companies has been determined by the double-edged blad of innovation. Someone makes something new that works better, gets big, and then someone else makes something newer and displaces them. Repeat cycle over and over. It's why in tech, we specialize in the art and business of innovation.<p>What we don't know how to do is navigate murky political waters. We're really, really bad at it. Can you imagine another $10BN company even letting this kind of bill happen, that would kill their largest market if it passed?<p>Airbnb isn't alone. Uber hired Obama's campaign manager because they realized they're biggest existential threat is a political one too. But see their ongoing lawsuits and outright bans in other countries – they haven't figured how to solve the political question either.<p>Meanwhile, car companies with a lower market cap, like GM, could figure out how to get a bailout from the government – right after it bailed out another huge industry, banks.<p>Those guys are just better at it. They have been for a long time. They get things like "don't optimize to something that solves problems. Optimize optics." Or that real deals get done behind closed doors, because you can control what happens there. That by the time it becomes a public debate, you've already lost the game.<p>We in tech have a disgust for politics. Rightfully so. It's useless at best and harmful more often. It doesn't follow the clear, hard and fast rules that the rest of tech does. But if we don't hold our nose and figure out how to play the game, or better yet, reinvent it, we'll get outplayed on the biggest board of them all.
New Yorker here. Short-term rentals and Airbnb in particular have had a noticeable negative impact on my downtown Manhattan neighborhood, although I'm not talking about rent. Everyone I know now has stories about "guests" who let anyone and everyone into the building, damage common areas, and make noise all night long, because really, what do they care? They are on vacation. They are here to party, and then they are gone forever.<p>Apartments are designed for long-term residents. Why should we even consider allowing them to become budget hotels?
SF absolutely needs to build more housing. SF also needs to build taller (more skyscrapers).<p>I have trouble believing AirBnB helps SF. Anecdotally, I know a few people who rent their places on AirBnB. All live in rent controlled units and effectively re-rent at market rates. One actually reduced hours at his job because income from AirBnB was so lucrative.
Sam, your post doesnt at all address the problem policymakers are trying to solve, which is landlords evicting tenants and then converting those units to short term rentals. I agree that Prop F is a bad way to fix that bad behavior, but its also disingenuous to not talk about the problem. I don't think anybody can make a coherent argument that renting out a spare room is driving up prices. What does do that is landlords deciding they would rather be in the hotel business.
> About 33,000 of these were vacant, generally as a side effect of rent control laws. (I don’t honestly know if rent control is a net good or bad thing—I assume more good than bad—but it certainly keeps units off the market.)<p>I will never understand why most Americans generally favor a tough-luck, fire-at-will attitude for employment, but are in favor of rent control and making eviction extremely difficult.<p>Coming from New Zealand, it's the other way around (it's extremely difficult to fire people, but there is no rent control and you can evict anyone with 90 days notice).<p>Not saying one or the other is necessarily better (I personally think somewhere in the middle for both approaches would be best), but strict eviction laws and rent control always seemed very un-American to me.
> Unfortunately, a lot of other people have problems paying their rent or mortgage. 75% of Airbnb hosts in San Francisco say that their income from Airbnb helps them stay in their homes, and 60% of the Airbnb income goes to rent/mortgage and other housing expenses.<p>Sources of this data?<p>How many Airbnb people are putting out property they own vs those who are renting?<p>It sounds like people are abusing it to stay in homes they could otherwise not afford, which is in itself adding to the housing problems in San Fran.<p>Facilitating someone easily renting out their home, great. Allowing renters (and to a lesser extent home owners) subsidize their over extended living, bad.
<i>"only about 340 units in SF were rented on Airbnb more than 211 nights, which is what Airbnb has calculated as the break-even point compared to long-term rental"</i><p>This is a crazy figure. That's saying hosts only charge 1.7X more per night than they would get from a roommate or tenant. That's ridiculous.<p>A quick search on AirBnB shows rooms in my neighborhood going for $130-230. That's $4k-7K/month for a room fully booked. A quick search on Craigslist shows roommates wanted for $1200-2200. That's about a 3X markup, nearly double what Airbnb claims.<p>That matches anecdotally what I hear a lot. People are increasingly preferring to AirBnB rooms instead of seeking roommates. They get more money and/or have more control over their space. No getting stuck with a crazy roommate, no overnight guests, you can have the place to yourself when you want, etc. This takes housing stock off the residential market and moves it to the more attractive tourist market. It's similar when you look at entire apartments too and the incentives to hold onto them and Airbnb them after you've really moved out, instead of letting new residents move in.<p>So the 75 day limit that Prop F proposes is much better targeted at changing those economics than the current 120 day limit (which is not very enforceable anyway). That means you'd have to charge 5X to break even vs. a long term rental, which is too much. So it only makes sense to AirBnB rooms/units that really would never go onto the long term market anyway.
The problem with Prop F is that it has some very dangerous side effects. Read this detailed analysis if you want to know more: <a href="https://medium.com/@emeyerson/prop-f-is-worse-than-you-think-17e395ca8761" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@emeyerson/prop-f-is-worse-than-you-think...</a>
My friend Matt just summed up your cynical formulation: "let's let Airbnb capture tax revenue so that people now in their homes can stay there a little longer" as a hand sandwich: I will sell you two pieces of bread and convince you it will taste good if you shove your hand and start eating.
Sam means well, but he does live 200% inside the internet hype machine bubble vortex:<p><i>The whole magic of the sharing economy is better asset utilization and thus lower prices for everyone. Home sharing makes better utilization out of a fixed asset, and by more optimally filling space it means the same number of people can use less supply.</i><p>"better utilization out of a fixed asset" is how we talk about factory machinery, not so much living space.<p>Housing has physical implications and psychological cost. If we wanted <i>optimal</i> space filling, we'd put 10,000 bunk beds in a warehouse and tell people to deal with it. The proles can have their bunk bed warehouse while the billionaires can have estates in San Francisco. et voilà, optimal filling of space allocated by level of monetary expenduture.
Your (and many) arguments about AirBnB revolve around housing, economics, etc.<p>There are other arguments to be made about the quality of service & safety. Read some of the comments from another recent HN story: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10291070" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10291070</a><p>My own individual and anecdotal story: as an individual whose neighbor was AirBnB-ing his apt next door to mine, seeing dozens of unfamiliar faces (and, without going into detail, the behavior and antics of some of these occupants) did not make me feel safe. If anything, they should severely restricted under this guise, not "affordable housing". (Though I do agree that more housing would generally improve the situation for all).
Wow! ~2/3 of housing units in SF are rentals...<p><pre><code> "In 2014 (the most recent year with available data) there were about 387,000
housing units in SF. About 38% were owner-occupied, and the remaining 62%
or 240,000 were rental units."</code></pre>
><i>In the past year, only about 340 units in SF were rented on Airbnb more than 211 nights</i>, which is what Airbnb has calculated as the break-even point compared to long-term rental.<p>Ok, there are a small number of units that are let or sub-let for 2/3 of the nights per year. That doesn't tell us much. I'd guess it would be near a full time job to keep your house let out 66% of the time. You wouldn't even be living there most of the time...how can you even really claim it to be yours?<p>Any observation would show that the primary use is for AirBnB and their customers.
<i>> I recently reached out to Brian Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb, to learn more about this.</i><p>I didn't reach out to any of the sponsors or advocates for Prop F, such as the political figures and organizations listed at <a href="http://www.sharebettersf.com/endorsements-propf-prop-f-airbnb-sf/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sharebettersf.com/endorsements-propf-prop-f-airbn...</a>, of course. And while this post is full of stats that sound a lot like the kind of thing you'd get from Airbnb PR, nowhere in it am I going to inquire further and link to an opposing view, or really engage with opposing views in any material way. I'll just dismiss them by saying that the solution is for SF to allow more building, as if making that happen hasn't been the most contentious and complicated issue in the city literally for generations.<p>One could also argue that I myself have helped drive up the high cost of housing in SF, both by running a program that requires the people it admits to move to SF in order to participate, and more generally by being part of a hype ecosystem that aims to convince impressionable young people that the only way to be successful in tech is to somehow jam yourself into this already bursting-at-the-seams city. I'm not really going to engage with that line of thought either, though.
The data cited here makes the bill sound ridiculous, though it also leaves me wondering how many more units are being rented out on AirBnB with less frequency than these 340 units. Still, SF was pricey before AirBnB. It is ridiculous to try to blame local housing prices on this one company.<p>It looks like AirBnB meeds to do some serious PR work. I think thier rapid rise is helping create the illusion that they impact the local housing market more than they actually do.
> About 33,000 of these were vacant, generally as a side effect of rent control laws. (I don’t honestly know if rent control is a net good or bad thing—I assume more good than bad—but it certainly keeps units off the market.)<p>If I understand it correctly, one of the most common ways of evicting rent-controlled tenants is through owner move in. A side effect of this is that the owner has to "live there" for 3 years[0]. Given this, it seems like this statistic -- which, taken out of context, could be used to demonize rent-controlled units as wasting valuable housing stock -- is actually forced on the short-term rental market by profit-seeking landlords.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=965" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=965</a>
><i></i><i>His flat is still on Airbnb and guess what, you can still "Instant Book" it! And I'd lay odds if you do, you'll be met at the door with some shabby excuse about why it isn't ready, but don't worry, he has another place for you not far away...</i><i></i><p>WHY doesn't AirBnB have a fraud checking department where apartments like this are booked by agents of AirBnB to check in on just such things.<p>If ALL AirBnB hosts KNEW that their next tenant <i></i><i>COULD</i><i></i> be an actual AirBnB rep -- then they wouldn't pull shit like this as often.<p>And they should be able to get a "Verified good by AirBnB stays"
The price of housing in SF has about doubled in the past 5 years, according to the post. What has happened to the price of hotel accommodations over the same period?
We have the same affordable housing problem here in Boulder, but on a much smaller scale than SF. It's been this way for over a decade... Unfortunately, fixing this housing dynamic is not so simple as increasing supply. Incremental increases in supply can never keep up with exponential demand.<p>IMO the highest impact solution is to focus on transportation. But that's a topic for another discussion.
The real solution here is to change the laws protecting gigantic swaths of ugly "historic" districts like the mission. Unfortunately no politician or home owner wants to vote for this because it would dramatically devalue their homes if SF is finally allowed to build vertically. Then the tiny increase in housing costs due to Airbnb is no big deal.
Why doesn't AirB&B work to reduce prices? Once it becomes less profitable for people to sublet their places for the sake of making it money, maybe people will see it as less of an evil. There are far too many hacker hotels in SF on AirB&B charging ridiculous rates, jamming up to 20 people into a single condo stacked with bunk beds.
A guy with a bias; is trying to tell me that lessoning supply in a super high demand region is only nominally effecting prices.<p>my head is spinning..
What some people call "the sharing economy" is not new. After all, what is the world's oldest profession if not "sharing" genitals. Sometimes with a middleman (or "pimp") taking his cut.
Unfortunately, some of the problem may be the language we use to advance our points. Here's a phrase that I think really does illustrate this:<p>"Making it harder to share your home in San Francisco may make it impossible for some of these hosts to afford to stay in their homes and in this city."<p>I really do want to discuss this reasonably, but to me, this is clearly a misuse of the word "share". There is a powerful emotion around "sharing", and to say that San Francisco is making it harder to "share" your home does have a different ring than saying it is making it harder to "rent out your home short term".<p>I will certainly agree that there can be some ambiguity around the word "share". For instance, if two people both pay equally for a large sandwich, they might say they "shared" it rather than "split it". But when you list your room on a website for a certain price, and someone pays you for it, I don't think we're anywhere close to that ambiguous grey area. This is clearly a quid-pro-quo commercial transaction. They can be friendly transactions, people can get to know each other through these transactions. I'm not even saying it's an undesirable transaction (more or less everyone I know things that airbnb has its place, though there is great disagreement over how these rentals should be regulated).<p>But I really don't think it's "sharing" by any reasonable definition of the term.