City Near Me Raising Concerns about AirBNB

[Larabeth]

wvtm13.com/news/popular-lodging-trend-raising-concerns-in-homewood/38380196

"According to McClusky, one of the main concerns is that renting out property on a short-term basis creates a “transient nature” in the community. He said there are also concerns that renting out these spaces brings in strangers to the neighborhood and there’s not a standard for background checks."

Anyone else seeing these concerns pop up in their area?

[GreenSheep]

It's not near me, but I did stay in an AirBnB in New Orleans a few months ago, and I heard that there have been concerns there recently.

I have mixed feelings about this. I write this as I sit in an AirBnB in which I'm staying for an entire month, so clearly I'm not against AirBnBs. On the other hand, I emailed my HOA president a few months ago when the townhouse next door to mine (I have since sold mine) had obviously become an AirBnB. I noticed a lot of strangers coming and going, so I looked up the address on airbnb.com, found it, and found a photo of the owner, who had told the HOA that she just had a lot of family in town in preparation for her wedding. (Rentals are not allowed, per HOA bylaws, for less than a 6-month period. She was *on the HOA board* and was very much aware of this.)

I think AirBnBs are best in places that are far from neighbors (I'm currently on a 5-acre farm), and obviously not a good idea where they are specifically prohibited, as above. As a consumer, I LOVE them because they provide a cheaper alternative to hotels, usually with a kitchen, and usually with a local who can tell you all about the area. I'm just not a big fan when they're close enough to bother the neighbors with noise, potential crime, etc.

[Beaker]

This has been a concern in Denver. Currently short-term rentals (STRs) are not legal at all, but in practice that means they operate however they want and don't pay any taxes or have any regulation at all. There is an ordinance in the works that makes them legal, taxed, regulated, and limited to only primary residences. The main arguments against allowing STRs as investment properties (ie, 2nd, 3rd, etc units) is that it could turn the housing stock into hotels and cause problems, especially for low income housing users. This has been a problem in San Francisco, although there is still some debate about how much of their issues are actually due to STRs vs other factors.

Austin also passed an ordinance on this pretty recently (2-3 months, maybe?) but I'm not as conversant with the details. IIRC a lot of the debate there revolved around "party houses," although that seemed to be somewhat of a red herring. Tourists do sometimes cause problems, but then residents do too - we've been battling my neighbors' about their dogs barking all through the night for the better part of 6 months, and they've owned that house forever.

I actually work for HomeAway (now Expedia, yay mergers), which is a competitor of AirBnB. But I'm just a code slinger, not community relations or anything like that. The company line is "STRs everywhere!" Not a big surprise there, since that is our business, although I think we have a much better track record of respecting the communities we're in than AirBnB does.

My personal opinion is that you're better off having some regulation than no regulation at all. But I'm skeptical that having lots of STRs is really healthy for the long-term growth and management of a community.

edit: spelling. Can't believe I wrote "do" instead of "due", personal pet peeve of mine!

[bacchi]

Austin also passed an ordinance on this pretty recently (2-3 months, maybe?) but I'm not as conversant with the details. IIRC a lot of the debate there revolved around "party houses," although that seemed to be somewhat of a red herring. Tourists do sometimes cause problems, but then residents do too - we've been battling my neighbors' about their dogs barking all through the night for the better part of 6 months, and they've owned that house forever.

Austin has banned (a sliding ban, by ~2018) non-owner-occupied STRs. Houses where the owner is present, whether a bedroom or a garage apartment, are still legal but are limited to ~5% of the houses in a neighborhood.

[justajane]

I grew up in the city discussed in the article, so thanks for the link!

I don't live in Birmingham anymore, but my city council here in the Midwest blocked AirBNB entirely until recently and until some local residents made a big stink about it. Now the rule is that they have to register with the city and undergo regular checks. There are also a couple of rules that they have to follow.

Overall I think the mayor and residents were concerned about disturbing other home owners and that those staying in the AirBNB wouldn't be respectful of the neighborhood or would be too loud at night. It will be interesting to see how these issues develop.

[Rollin]

Many cities in Florida are dealing with it.  The Florida League of Cities is working on it, and I also understand that the Florida League of Counties is as well.

Here is a quick take on why. Just picture the house next door to you rented by the night or for a long weekend (wedding parties, college kids, retirees, etc.).  You can't choose who it is or how long/short they stay.

[calimom]

It's complicated, to be sure.  There are a lot of arguments for STRs and also against them.  We recently spent a long weekend in Ojai with another family.  We got to make our own meals, had use of the pool in a beautiful and relaxed setting.

But, in some HCOL markets, imagine a good portion of rentals being taken off the market to be used exclusively for STRs.  It drives up the cost of housing for residents.  And imagine, as others have mentioned, living next door to a house or apartment being in constant use by Airbnb renters.  Some will be great; others will be noisy and inconsiderate.  If you wanted a hotel as a neighbor, you'd live next door to a Marriott.

[Eric]

This business model is making a lot of money so people want their piece of the pie.  So of course there are lots of "problems" that can easily be solved by some extra tax revenue.

[mm1970]

wvtm13.com/news/popular-lodging-trend-raising-concerns-in-homewood/38380196

"According to McClusky, one of the main concerns is that renting out property on a short-term basis creates a “transient nature” in the community. He said there are also concerns that renting out these spaces brings in strangers to the neighborhood and there’s not a standard for background checks."

Anyone else seeing these concerns pop up in their area?

Oh yeah, it's HUGE here.

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/airbnb_crashes_at_santa_barbara_city_council

And funny I just realized I know the woman in pink in the photo.

http://www.independent.com/news/2015/jun/25/santa-barbara-lower-boom-vacation-rentals/

It's a huge issue here for several reasons:
1.  We live in a vacation destination.  Tourists love it here.  They spend money.  Other industries are dying.
2.  It is incredibly expensive to live here.  Starter homes (2BR, 1BA, small) are $750k.  During the downturn, you could get that house for $500k.
- So now that houses are more expensive, we have a housing squeeze.  Rental vacancies are less than 1%.  That makes renting VERY expensive.

So short term rentals take housing "off market" for renters, making the housing squeeze even worse. 

It's a tough one.  I have a friend who left town to move to the bay area, but they still come visit.  They kept their house, and rent it out short term.  If they did long term, then they couldn't stay.
For some people, short term rentals help them pay their mortgage (if they have a room they rent out, or a granny unit.  My coworker lives in the Bay Area and uses Air-BNB to rent a bedroom only M-Th every week).
Short term rentals make money!
On the other hand, in certain neighborhoods, you don't want them.  Often houses become "party houses" - they are noisy and disruptive to the neighbors (though I have a hard time believing it's much worse than my noisy boys and my neighbor's incessantly barking dogs).

It's a tough one, and I think my area collected $1.2 million in a recent year in taxes from vacation rentals.  That's a lot of dough!

[mm1970]

It's complicated, to be sure.  There are a lot of arguments for STRs and also against them.  We recently spent a long weekend in Ojai with another family.  We got to make our own meals, had use of the pool in a beautiful and relaxed setting.

But, in some HCOL markets, imagine a good portion of rentals being taken off the market to be used exclusively for STRs.  It drives up the cost of housing for residents.  And imagine, as others have mentioned, living next door to a house or apartment being in constant use by Airbnb renters.  Some will be great; others will be noisy and inconsiderate.  If you wanted a hotel as a neighbor, you'd live next door to a Marriott.

Exactly what my town struggles with.

Of course, we are going to Utah in a month and staying in an Air-BNB.  I could rent a condo instead (I've been renting condos in places like Hawaii, etc. for over a decade).  But Air-BNB is significantly cheaper.

[No Name Guy]

"According to McClusky, one of the main concerns is that renting out property on a short-term basis creates a “transient nature” in the community. He said there are also concerns that renting out these spaces brings in strangers to the neighborhood and there’s not a standard for background checks."

Yeah....it was such a pain in the ass the last time I went out of town.  The effing hotel demanded my background check paperwork 2 months ahead of time, AND finger prints to boot.  They also demanded I prove I know someone within a 10 mile radius so I wasn't a complete "stranger" to the area.  I think I found a friend of a friend of my 2nd cousin, twice removed for that part.

[Johnny Aloha]

Hawaii is also cracking down, specifically in certain areas of Oahu.  Fines start at $500/day!

[Larabeth]

"According to McClusky, one of the main concerns is that renting out property on a short-term basis creates a “transient nature” in the community. He said there are also concerns that renting out these spaces brings in strangers to the neighborhood and there’s not a standard for background checks."

Yeah....it was such a pain in the ass the last time I went out of town.  The effing hotel demanded my background check paperwork 2 months ahead of time, AND finger prints to boot.  They also demanded I prove I know someone within a 10 mile radius so I wasn't a complete "stranger" to the area.  I think I found a friend of a friend of my 2nd cousin, twice removed for that part.

Hahahaha, this is pretty much what I thought when I read this.

Though some of the thoughts brought up about causing a rental price hike and lack of space for others are good ones

[sstants]

This seems like such a resistance to change that is foolish. We are moving towards a sharing economy, especially in cities (think Uber) that will make life more affordable and reduce environmental impact. Think about how many rooms in hotels sit empty at any given time.

I think people should be thinking about how to make house/apartment sharing more pleasant for everyone rather than just dismissing the new idea.

[Beaker]

This seems like such a resistance to change that is foolish. We are moving towards a sharing economy, especially in cities (think Uber) that will make life more affordable and reduce environmental impact. Think about how many rooms in hotels sit empty at any given time.

I think people should be thinking about how to make house/apartment sharing more pleasant for everyone rather than just dismissing the new idea.

That logic works when you're talking about renting out a housing unit (or part of one) that someone already lives in. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of opposition to that idea.

But that logic doesn't apply for units that are exclusively used as STRs because then you have the same partial occupancy problem as a hotel, but in a much less dense package. An empty 400-room hotel takes up a city block but 400 empty houses take up many blocks. This seems to be the case that most people object to.

[No Name Guy]

That logic works when you're talking about renting out a housing unit (or part of one) that someone already lives in. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of opposition to that idea.

But that logic doesn't apply for units that are exclusively used as STRs because then you have the same partial occupancy problem as a hotel, but in a much less dense package. An empty 400-room hotel takes up a city block but 400 empty houses take up many blocks. This seems to be the case that most people object to.

So what?  Who is to say how occupied MY private property is supposed to be?  If I want to leave it vacant, so be it.  It's MY private property, what business is that of anyone else?  If I want to only occupy it one day out of the year, what business is it of anyone else?  If I want a 100 houses, who the fuck is anyone to say I can't leave all of them but one vacant if that what I want to do?  It's but a tiny step for those who think like the quoted text to try and impose mandatory occupation rules on housing and confiscate those units not being occupied. 

The solution for the "problems" in short term rentals is, as always, private property and individual rights, not oppressive Government rules that ALWAYS favor intrenched special interests (e.g. hotel owners who stand to lose a shit ton of money when travelers have a choice in accommodations - see, the hotel lobby bribes gives campaign donations to the local city council asshats, D's, R's and the rest, to keep out the competition).  The worst abuses of the little guy and gal happen at the point of the Government wielded gun - ask any victim of for profit eminent domain, for one example, of how the Government is there to hold down the little guy, not help them, or how about nakedly anti-competitive occupational licensing rules to keep the gravy train going for incumbent business' (by keeping out upstart competition) at the expense of the consumer.

Raucous party from the STR next door?  Call the cops and file a noise and/or public intoxication complaint (their noise in excess of regulation is entering your private property, their drunken people are stumbling around in public, etc).

Shit being thrown over the fence?  Sue the owner for illegally dumping their property (e.g. trash) onto your property without permission.

STR asshats parking in your driveway?  Be sure you have the towing / booting sign posted per local law and tow or boot their vehicle for using your property without permission.

[Beaker]

... that will make life more affordable and reduce environmental impact. Think about how many rooms in hotels sit empty at any given time. ...

That logic works when you're talking about renting out a housing unit (or part of one) that someone already lives in. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of opposition to that idea.

But that logic doesn't apply for units that are exclusively used as STRs because then you have the same partial occupancy problem as a hotel, but in a much less dense package. An empty 400-room hotel takes up a city block but 400 empty houses take up many blocks. This seems to be the case that most people object to.

So what?  Who is to say how occupied MY private property is supposed to be?  If I want to leave it vacant, so be it.  It's MY private property, what business is that of anyone else?

"So what" is that the person I was replying to made an argument based on lower costs, reduced environmental impact, and having fewer empty hotel rooms. Using a lot more resources to accomplish the same goal defeats all of those purposes. Your response has essentially nothing to do with the point I was making, or the point to which I was responding.

By all means rage on, but you might consider that it basically boils down to the argument against zoning regulations. That's been argued back and forth pretty much forever, so I'm not going to rehash it here, but suffice to say they while they're far from perfect they don't exist solely to screw over the little guy or trample property rights.


PS, nice use of bolded, underlined, italicized, capitalized letters there. Really gets the point across.

[mm1970]

That logic works when you're talking about renting out a housing unit (or part of one) that someone already lives in. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of opposition to that idea.

But that logic doesn't apply for units that are exclusively used as STRs because then you have the same partial occupancy problem as a hotel, but in a much less dense package. An empty 400-room hotel takes up a city block but 400 empty houses take up many blocks. This seems to be the case that most people object to.

So what?  Who is to say how occupied MY private property is supposed to be?  If I want to leave it vacant, so be it.  It's MY private property, what business is that of anyone else?  If I want to only occupy it one day out of the year, what business is it of anyone else?  If I want a 100 houses, who the fuck is anyone to say I can't leave all of them but one vacant if that what I want to do?  It's but a tiny step for those who think like the quoted text to try and impose mandatory occupation rules on housing and confiscate those units not being occupied. 

The solution for the "problems" in short term rentals is, as always, private property and individual rights, not oppressive Government rules that ALWAYS favor intrenched special interests (e.g. hotel owners who stand to lose a shit ton of money when travelers have a choice in accommodations - see, the hotel lobby bribes gives campaign donations to the local city council asshats, D's, R's and the rest, to keep out the competition).  The worst abuses of the little guy and gal happen at the point of the Government wielded gun - ask any victim of for profit eminent domain, for one example, of how the Government is there to hold down the little guy, not help them, or how about nakedly anti-competitive occupational licensing rules to keep the gravy train going for incumbent business' (by keeping out upstart competition) at the expense of the consumer.

Raucous party from the STR next door?  Call the cops and file a noise and/or public intoxication complaint (their noise in excess of regulation is entering your private property, their drunken people are stumbling around in public, etc).

Shit being thrown over the fence?  Sue the owner for illegally dumping their property (e.g. trash) onto your property without permission.

STR asshats parking in your driveway?  Be sure you have the towing / booting sign posted per local law and tow or boot their vehicle for using your property without permission.

Honestly, I'm not sure there are many people here upset about unoccupied houses.  And there are plenty of those too, lots of people own second homes here.

The concern I see is asshats who are just visiting and raise a ruckus.

Now, it's hard to pick your neighbors.  We've had a lot of turnover in the last 10 years, and you can always get a jerk for  a neighbor.  Luck of the draw there.

However, it's different if you have a never-ending supply of jerks.  Then there is no learning.  You know, somebody parks their big truck in front of my house for days, I can get them towed (if it doesn't move in 3 days).  If they park there every night and I cannot see to safely pull out, then I will put a note on the truck to "please park somewhere else" (one of our cars was totaled for that very reason, and I've found the 2 people who parked in front of my house were very good about moving after that).  But a new person every two weeks?  Making noise, being a jerk?

Or not I guess.

I see the concern from both sides.  Residential areas are residential, and are not commercial - they are zoned as such.  There are limits to the # of units you can have, the square footage, the number of parking spaces, the # of people who are living there, whether or not you can operate a business.  These rules are set in place before you even buy the house, so you can't suddenly say "well, I didn't KNOW that I wasn't allowed to convert my garage to another apartment!!"

Likewise there are areas that are zoned commercial and are zoned as a combo.

It's kind of a difficult spot in some areas -
On one hand, it's my house.  If I decide to move somewhere else and rent it out as an investment property - I could make a LOT more renting it out as a STR.
As a LTR, I could get $3k/ month.  That would cover mortgage, taxes, ins.
As a STR, I could get $200 a night, or $6000 a month (some times of  year more than that).  Even if it wasn't fully occupied, I'd only need 50% bookings to break even.  And the advantage is that I could actually come home and stay in it!  (As I mentioned, I have a friend doing this.)

On the other hand, I'd hate to tick off my neighbors with rowdy people staying there.  Houses are close together.
And of course, there's a serious rental shortage.  Every single house that gets converted is giving a big FU to all of the people who are already struggling to make it here.

It's not a black and white issue by any means.  It comes back to the age old question, "does anyone have a RIGHT to live in a particular place"?  I dunno.

[Rollin]

Something else I thought that is important for anyone thinking of going the AirBnB route, and that is liability. Essentially you are now a hotel (a commercial use), but it is unlikely that you meet hotel standards or have procedures and policies in place to ensure that your guests are safe and sound (at the level required of a hotel or commercial use). So, say your house burns down while a guest is there (maybe they caused it maybe they didn't). Do you think your insurance company will cover the loss? What happens if the guest(s) gets hurt, or one of the first responders, or a neighbor? I'll bet your insurance company (and possibly your mortgage company) might have a problem with you offering your home through AirBnB or VRBo or ...

[Rollin]

That logic works when you're talking about renting out a housing unit (or part of one) that someone already lives in. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of opposition to that idea.

But that logic doesn't apply for units that are exclusively used as STRs because then you have the same partial occupancy problem as a hotel, but in a much less dense package. An empty 400-room hotel takes up a city block but 400 empty houses take up many blocks. This seems to be the case that most people object to.

So what?  Who is to say how occupied MY private property is supposed to be?  If I want to leave it vacant, so be it.  It's MY private property, what business is that of anyone else?  If I want to only occupy it one day out of the year, what business is it of anyone else?  If I want a 100 houses, who the fuck is anyone to say I can't leave all of them but one vacant if that what I want to do?  It's but a tiny step for those who think like the quoted text to try and impose mandatory occupation rules on housing and confiscate those units not being occupied. 

The solution for the "problems" in short term rentals is, as always, private property and individual rights, not oppressive Government rules that ALWAYS favor intrenched special interests (e.g. hotel owners who stand to lose a shit ton of money when travelers have a choice in accommodations - see, the hotel lobby bribes gives campaign donations to the local city council asshats, D's, R's and the rest, to keep out the competition)[/u][/i].  The worst abuses of the little guy and gal happen at the point of the Government wielded gun - ask any victim of for profit eminent domain, for one example, of how the Government is there to hold down the little guy, not help them, or how about nakedly anti-competitive occupational licensing rules to keep the gravy train going for incumbent business' (by keeping out upstart competition) at the expense of the consumer.

Raucous party from the STR next door?  Call the cops and file a noise and/or public intoxication complaint (their noise in excess of regulation is entering your private property, their drunken people are stumbling around in public, etc).

Shit being thrown over the fence?  [i]Sue the owner[/i] for illegally dumping their property (e.g. trash) onto your property without permission.

STR asshats parking in your driveway?  Be sure you have the towing / booting sign posted per local law and tow or boot their vehicle for using your property without permission.

Wow, and that would make life in your residential neighborhood better how? So now you've got to deal with the police (government too remember, only this time they are helping you), attorneys, court systems, other bureaucrats (more government). So we are talking about private property rights and an STR. Okay. I think I want to open a auto repair garage from my home, no make that a body shop (you know paint fumes, grinders, junk cars laying about). Then probably a blood bank or a done clinic, yeah that'll make me some money!

As far as your comments on government I think you are mixing local, state, and federal all into one - "Government." And by doing so you are saying they are all bad because you don't want to be told you cannot rent your house to out of towners at your discretion. Yet, you are suggesting some pretty heavy reliance on them to solve the problems of the STR next door (see above highlighting).  What about  the guy that lives next door to your STR, the one that may have a huge investment in his property, now has to deal with the problems you describe and so easily resolve by calling the police, involving the court system, hiring an attorney, yelling over the fence maybe? Oh that sounds like a peaceful and fun way to exist.

No Name Guy - I know we all have items that we are passionate about, and mine is when people condemn or complain about "government" as a whole, yet don't realize how they rely on so much of it (especially when it suits them).