The real problem is nimby laws that limit new housing at high densities. This is self serving because no home owners wants any new houses at all. They want their house to go up in price.
At some time Silicon Valley risks becoming a Silicon desert
Wow. The SFBARFers/sf redditors are in the bag for AirBNB (you self identified by using NIMBY indiscriminately)
This law should actually help your cause. Up to 75% of the local Airbnb listings aren't in compliance. The additional housing will surely help, no?
In seriousness this is a good regulation that one wonders why it took so long to make. All it does is require compliance with the existing law and helps local enforcement
I used nimby in the contest that new houses are not wanted in my area. I am in Canada, and have lived here since 1948, so I am neutral to AIRbnb, but I feel they should exist and not be run out of town this way.
Laws need to change to permit easy new home/apartment construction, or companies will simple leave because they can not get any employees.
AirBNB isn't being run out of town, nor does this have to do with real estate development. This is enforcement of previously enacted legislation that AirBNB has refused to enforce. In other words, it's adding teeth to existing laws.
No, that's not the case at all. Laws without enforcement or strength are a waste of time and the legal process. They should all have teeth, otherwise it's just a waste.
This adds teeth to the previous law and makes it worthwhile. That's all.
6 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 22.6 ms ] threadAt some time Silicon Valley risks becoming a Silicon desert
This law should actually help your cause. Up to 75% of the local Airbnb listings aren't in compliance. The additional housing will surely help, no?
In seriousness this is a good regulation that one wonders why it took so long to make. All it does is require compliance with the existing law and helps local enforcement
This is a good thing.
This adds teeth to the previous law and makes it worthwhile. That's all.