226 sats \ 3 replies \ @mudbloodvonfrei 5 Jul 2023 \ parent \ on: Keep Austin Weird! Meet Keyan, the founder of Stacker.news bitcoin
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?
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