245 sats \ 5 replies \ @mudbloodvonfrei 5 Jul 2023 \ parent \ on: Keep Austin Weird! Meet Keyan, the founder of Stacker.news bitcoin
Why do you say that Airbnb is a fiat-fuelled enterprise? The company itself probably is, like most other tech companies that sprung up since the Great Recession, but the idea that a person can maximize the utility derived from his assets is a good thing. It's also good for me as a traveler because I can save money and experience other places in a more authentic way. I hate hotels, I'd much rather stay in some dude's house.
I can see how low interest rates incentivize people to purchase homes specifically for renting out on Airbnb and that might have adverse effects on a community in a desirable location, but the absence of Airbnb doesn't really change that; people might buy those same properties for use as vacation homes and they'd sit idle most of the year which is also bad for the local community.
tldr You're ignoring the externalities of short term rentals. I understand the host and the guest benefit.
I'm going to be very rhetorical. I'm sorry but it's the most concise way that I can help you understand my point. Also, no judgement that you like airbnbs. Not all hosts are bad and not all guests are bad.
the idea that a person can maximize the utility derived from his assets is a good thing
I just bought the house next door to you. I can maximize the utility of it by turning in into gas station. You cool with that?
It's also good for me as a traveler because I can save money and experience other places in a more authentic way
Zoom out. Have you ever thought about why it's cheaper? My factory produces blue jeans at half the cost because I dump all the manufacturing chemicals in the nearby river. We bless them by "authentically" dipping them in the river like the locals used to do before my factory displaced them and poisoned the rest. How many would you like to buy?
I hate hotels, I'd much rather stay in some dude's house.
I don't like hotels either.
people might buy those same properties for use as vacation homes and they'd sit idle most of the year which is also bad for the local community.
Would you rather me open a gas station next door to you or it be empty?
This is a complex problem with a lot of variables.
Commercial uses in residential neighborhoods are generally going to be more profitable than residential uses ... this is great for commercializers and their consumers but it's bad for anyone who would otherwise live in the residential neighborhood.
reply
Airbnb might be cheaper because it generates externalities that are not reflected in the price, but it's also cheaper because it allows home owners to increase supply of temporary lodging without capital expenditure (for example, while they're away on vacation), reducing dead-weight loss, or whatever it's called.
I agree that it might not be fun to have an airbnb home next to yours. Or a gas station. And I might be very annoyed if the house next door was used for airbnb and had lots of noisy parties, but I'd be equally annoyed if the owners actually lived in the home and made a lot of noise, smoked crack on the porch in sight of my kids, invited prostitutes on a regular basis or any other of a million things neighbors can do to piss you off.
I understand your position and I don't think it's entirely unreasonable. I think it created a certain level of cognitive dissonance for me given that you run a bitcoin-oriented company and bitcoiners tend to lean libertarian (which I usually associate with a strong emphasis on property rights). So I guess my follow up question would be this: what principles would you apply to determine an acceptable solution to the problem?
reply
the owners actually lived in the home and made a lot of noise, smoked crack on the porch in sight of my kids, invited prostitutes on a regular basis or any other of a million things neighbors can do to piss you off.
Neighbors can be routinely bad, but they often aren't relative to hotel guests because ... they have a long term relationship with all of their neighbors. They have incentives to not be a detectable scumbag.
Independent of that incentive (which is extremely powerful imo), when you live next to a short term rental, the odds of you living next to a crack head, john, or loudness increases by a factor of how many different guests the rental has in year. (In my case 6-20 people per group, ~50-70 groups per year.)
I think it created a certain level of cognitive dissonance for me given that you run a bitcoin-oriented company and bitcoiners tend to lean libertarian (which I usually associate with a strong emphasis on property rights). So I guess my follow up question would be this: what principles would you apply to determine an acceptable solution to the problem?
I am a libertarian, or a minarchist, or an anarchist, or whatever. I don't love the labels, but I'm pro-liberty/property rights.
In an anarchist society, this is simply a contract dispute between neighbors. What we have instead are zoning laws (city wide contracts) which are arbitrarily changed/enforced/tightened/relaxed. Most zoning laws explicitly prohibit commercial use and often explicitly lodging use. Most short term rentals either exist illegally (enforcement is difficult because they're well camouflaged and hard to prove ... something like 70% of Austin's 16k strs are illegal) or exist legally in contradiction to zoning laws.
I moved into a residential neighborhood expecting the laws to be enforced because presumably that's what they are there for. If those laws didn't exist, I'd likely have to assess a neighborhood's contracts on a case by case basis.
Being pro-property rights doesn't mean accepting all externalities that come your way. It just means no one can take your property rights away under whatever conditions you acquired them.
reply
I've never really thought of zoning laws as a contract with neighbors as opposed to an imposition by a self-serving bureaucracy. That's an interesting and new (to me) perspective. Not sure I agree with it, but I'll definitely mull it over. Thanks!
reply
It's an abstract interpretation. If you steelman the intent of most government policies you can imagine they were once well intended and reasonable.
When created in earnest, laws are like The Nature of the Firm applied to contracts. Obviously they aren't often created in earnest and even when created in earnest are too broadly applied (firm is so big it'd actually inefficient).
reply