Hacker News Reader

Comment by crystaln | Hacker News Reader

PR disguised as science. I like Airbnb in many ways, but these arguements are shallow and wrong. If Airbnb is used to help pay for rent, that necessarily pushes rent upwards. That their research shows Airbnb makes housing "more affordable for families" could only be based on families renting out vacant rooms, something not all families want to do but may be forced to do if Airbnb is widespread.

This is Fox News level "science." This article made me slightly queezy.

View on HN

> If Airbnb is used to help pay for rent, that necessarily pushes rent upwards.

I definitely know people who are contemplating getting a bigger place with a spare room specifically to AirBnB it. Besides general effects on the housing market, this can increase people's financial risk (depending other aspects of their finances, such as savings cushion). It amounts to over-provisioning their housing in the hopes of reselling the spare capacity at a profit (you figure you can get more on AirBnB for the 3rd room than the incremental 2rd->3rd room costs you). That can turn out badly if somehow the reselling doesn't work, isn't as profitable as you thought it would be, you end up unable to manage it for a period of time so the extra capacity sites idle, etc. Sort of like buying extra servers in a colo because you figure you can make the money back by renting VPSs at a markup. It can definitely work, but to really make it work you are now in the VPS business, and you might lose money if you aren't good at that business.

In most rental markets, it's more difficult to find affordable housing for 3BR and 2BR units for families. If more people rent out 2BR and 3BR appartments to rent out the extra room, that's going to put more pressure on families looking for affordable housing.

I'm concerned about the effect this could have on family housing in San Francisco. If a family already owns a house and uses airbnb to rent out a downstairs bedroom now and then, sure, I could see that helping. But if a family is in a bidding war with someone without kids, the anticipated income from an airbnb rental could enable the bidder without a child who needs an extra room (to say nothing of the very high costs associated with raising a kid in SD) to go much higher. This would have the effect of making it harder for families to purchase what is currently zoned as single family housing.

Now, this is just a concern. It may not currently be happening, and it may be unlikely to happen in the future. According to this post, Ken Rosen, an economist at UC Berkeley, conducted a detailed study for airbnb and states that "...not only is there no evidence to suggest that short-term rentals are making homes less affordable, our research and analysis indicate that home sharing has the potential to make urban housing more affordable for more families."

I was unable to find a link to this study on the blog post... is this it?

http://urbanland.uli.org/news/short-term-rentals-and-the-hou...

The only reference I get to a "family" here is "...the amount of income from a rental alone is not generally sufficient to live on, but it can go a long way in providing supplemental income for a family." Sure, but is a family as able to access this supplemental income as someone without kids, and more free bedrooms? And what about the "bidding war" scenario, above? Even if it is not a big factor now, it could become a big factor once the expectation of rental income becomes the norm.

The urban land article references this study:

http://www.rosenconsulting.com/products/rentalreport.html

The roseconsulting link makes no reference to families. I recommend people who are interesting read it. The summary is that other factors have led to the rise in housing costs, including restrictive zoning laws and an employment boom, and that airbnb (and related) rentals are too small a part of the rental market to have much of an effect. Does this mean they could have a large effect if it become more widespread?

Hey, this is not actually what we are saying. Here is what we are saying. The vast majority of people in these cities (~85-90%) are renting the homes that they live in (also know as their primary dwelling) - either a living room, bedroom, or their whole home when they are gone. 60% of them depend on the money they make to pay their rent or mortgage - this according to the surveys we have done for our economic impact studies. These people were living in these homes before Airbnb, so they had a choice to either move out and find a cheaper place (presumably in a different neighborhood or out of the city) since they cannot afford the vacant space, or put it on Airbnb. Many of these people are self employed or under employed. A classic example are artists. This was my story when I moved to San Francisco. If these people moved out, the likely new tenants would be people who could afford to move in without renting on Airbnb. Now, of course some people could move in with the intention of renting on Airbnb. We are not saying this never happens. What we are saying is that more people are using Airbnb to keep their homes than using it as means of displacing people. The property manager issue is a real problem that we are dealing with.

By increasing the value of extra rooms and allowing people to monetize their vacancies, AirBNB necessarily increases the demand for rooms and the ability of people to pay more rent. This must push up rent. It is impossible for it not to.

Laws restricting short term rentals may partially be to protect the hotel industry, but they are also to encourage the environment and pricing necessary for longer term residency.

There are widespread stories, including some friends of mine, of people running large networks of properties leased expressly for subleasing on AirBNB. This reduces the supply of housing units substantially, and increases their prices. AirBNB needs to actively limit such usage in order to be defensible. Right now AirBNB rewards users who are obviously abusing the system and violating the law.

If your studies were conclusive, I'd expect you to release actual data instead of whitewashed PR like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com