Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahupp | Hacker News Reader

Note that 64% of new listings is very different than 64% of all properties. e.g, last I looked 1.5% of SF properties were on AirBnB (down from 3% before the recent regulations), though unclear what fraction were available for rent full-time. So at least in SF I don't think removing AirBnB would really change supply in a meaningful way.

View on HN

It would make a big difference to me. :) But it would not change supply.

I have an airbnb off my garage. It's a granny flat, a bed, a small bathroom and a kitchenette. A sink, but just a hot plate a fridge and no oven. It's not somewhere you'd want to live for a long time, in my opinion. But it's a great place to crash for a few days, have a cold breakfast, some oatmeal, reheat left overs, etc.

There's people like me who it helps live in SF and offset property taxes, price of the house, etc. Bad actors/bad markets/etc certainly do exist, but like all things it's complicated.

It’s not really though. SF has a housing crisis. We would all be better off if an unhoused person was living there or someone with lower paid but necessary job (e.g. caretaker at a nursing home).

Making money off people on vacations is worse than providing stable housing for people in the city.

The city prohibits from being rented long term since it lacks a full kitchen. The SF rules are, I could not airbnb if I could rent it long term.

Is this still true under the all statewide ADU legislation that came into effect this year?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2020/03/12...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com