Rick weighs in on Airbnb

Yeah, doesn't seem like he's really "weighing in" very much in this case.

Complex question. I see there are entirely valid points on both sides.

Maybe if Rick had seen this interactive map that shows what Air B&B has done to cities like Amsterdam, Berlin, etc. since 2008, he would be a bit more committal.
https://dwarshuis.com/various/airbnb/amsterdam/

Rick paints both sides of the argument in bright colors. As a capitalist he has to avoid offending potential customers. Not having that problem, I don't use AirBnBs that don't follow the traditional B&B model of a host sharing part of their home or an ADU.

https://grapevine.is/news/2017/11/29/reykjaviks-housing-problem-leaving-locals-out-in-the-cold/

Published November 29, 2017

Some Icelanders in Reykjavík are sleeping in tents and cars for lack
of affordable housing, while most long-term Airbnb listings in
Reykjavík are operating illegally.

Air BnBs are a new form of gentrification. Good for property owners, bad for tenants and new home buyers.

I believe in free enterprise and am not opposed to Airbnb in general.

However, here in the United States, its use in some homes may run afoul of zoning laws or homeowner's restrictive covenants (in some subdivisions that have restrictions on business use in a single family neighborhood).

We have yet to book with Airbnb, since when we travel location is of prime importance, as well as lodging. I try to find a good B&B over an expensive hotel where we can walk to key sites in a city. I find that frequently the Airbnb offerings don't have lodging where I want in the city center. The offerings are usually more suburban. This was particularly true in our four week drive tour of Wales and England last year.

Clearly, there are two sides to this coin. We have one home here on our island of the coast of Georgia where a beach house has been rented many times for weddings, by the owners. The neighbors are besieged with all the vehicles parked on their streets, tour music until late hours, people drunk and throwing refuse on the grounds and beaches. I think this may have been resolved, since it probably violated our local zoning laws.

Still. if it doesn't violate the law and the temporary tenants obey the law, it should be allowed.

I think RS is beginning a very healthy and fair conversation. Basically, from what he says, the big difference between now and his memories of renting a room is that today's model is much more organized in a central format online vs passing by and seeing signs on a small building letting travelers know the family that owns the house has a room to rent.

The online centralization of rooms to rent is responding to the demands of the marketplace. So many towns/villages/cities charge punitive tax rates for hotels/inns/B&Bs/motels. In addition, many lodging establishments in these towns/villages/cities charge high prices per night at very popular destinations worldwide. Travelers especially families from a wide span of incomes are being locked out from staying in the heart of major areas because they can't afford to especially when it's a family of 4, 5, 6, etc. AirBnB, VRBO, CouchSurfing, FlipKey etc are responding to that market demand. My brothers and sisters travel exclusively using AirBnB and VRBO because that is how they can afford to take themselves and their children overseas as well as domestically like to Lake Placid, for example, for a ski vacation. The savings also extends to food costs; they cook dinner where they stay thereby saving tremendously on restaurants. In Paris, my brother loved cooking in as he enjoyed the daily markets and access to foods they could not find at home.

As a solo female traveler, I have no interest in this whatsoever. I like staying at a boutique hotel with 24 hour front desk coverage. I look online months in advance to start finding deals for overseas spring and autumn travel.

Living in a ski town in Colorado we are dealing with wide ranging affects of the change to Air bnb. Homeowners are short terming their condos and homes they used to rent out long term to locals. They are getting more money than they did long terming to the local work force, but they are adding stress to neighborhoods that are supposed to be residential, they are avoiding the 10% room tax frequently, and now we have a full on housing crisis, which then turns into an employee crisis for business owners.

honestly, in the USA and probably other countries is the fact that the government is not getting the taxes.
We stayed in 3 VRBO while in Europe this spring and they wanted all documentation and had to file paperwork within hours of our checking in. (Spain and Portugal). France didn't seem to care. ?????
In Lisbon, we had a difficult time finding reasonably rated hotels.. so if someone wants to make a dollar and go into the work of renting for a few days, then all the best.

The Air B B or VRBO are not without a bit of trouble. Sometimes not easy to find. No daily maid service. No breakfast. No reception desk. Not a lot of security. And sometimes not what you might expect.
We had in one of our VRBO's only two large towels and one small towels and no way to wash up dishes, unless we used paper towels. And this for 4 nights. Plus only one blanket. I know, we should have called the owner, but I was trying not to be the "ugly American".

I have used AirBnB many times. All have been good to outstanding.

Here in Oz, the AirBnB model has brought a very welcome dose of competitive pressure to the traditional hotel and B&B market. Quite frankly, breaks in Australia were becoming unaffordable and the quality of hotel accommodation in particular was pretty bad. On a price/quality basis, it was quite appalling.

Lack of competition is a major problem here, whether in holiday accommodation, taxi services or general retail, thanks to successive governments of all stripes either failing to support competition or outright reducing it through anti-competitive taxes or excessive red tape. The whiff of government/business collusion is strong at all levels of government.

So, whilst I sympathise with those business owners who struggle in the face of new channels of competition, I heartily endorse free markets as a means to keep consumer prices down and service quality up. We are now seeing some benefits in those areas, especially in taxi services, where previously it was really hard finding a taxi in our major cities that wasn't smellier than a teenager's bedroom.

The local community (whether a city, town, or a condo building, etc) should have an honest, open and transparent dialogue on whether or how to accommodate short-term rentals in their locality based on their own values and constraints. Airbnb as an outsider disruptor just steamrolled its way into many localities without involving the locals and that understandably left a bad taste in a lot of mouths. Normally if you want to drive change, it's better to get people on your side versus dismissing them and going over their heads. It's not only about the tourists and doing things for their benefit. Locals have a right to be heard too - they are a key stakeholder in this whole discussion. In their haste and hubris, the Silicon Valley wonder kids seemed to gloss over this.

Yup, noncommittal but understandable statement from Rick (but his video tackles some of the tradeoffs well). He doesn't mention how many Airbnbs don't have hosts who live there; they are MIA because they're property investors who may not even be from the community (it's not an "either/ or" between someone sharing their home or a hotel, there are plenty of other variations). I don't know how this advances cultural immersion. So you're staying in someone's "homey place" at a fraction of a cost but not interacting with any locals - how does that make you a "temporary local" again? These are clearly fuzzy marketing terms without much meaning. Better to strip away the mushy language and just look at hard facts: who benefits and who loses under each scenario and try to figure out how to make a compromise that works (as well as can be) for everyone.

Agnes said: "Airbnb as an outsider just steamrolled its way in without involving the locals ... "

Whilst I agree that any AirBnB operation that contravenes local nuisance laws should be sanctioned, I know of no other business that goes to the trouble of canvassing locals - or giving them any kind of veto power - before setting up. Every neighbourhood has its 'NIMBYs' and they will oppose anything and everything that doesn't benefit themselves directly. Local planning and nuisance laws already exist as a non-personal means to address existing residents' rights and these are of course always playing catch-up as innovation produces new challenges. I have no doubt that evolving legislation will incorporate means to specifically deal with AirBnB issues - and of course other platforms doing the same thing, because private holiday rentals were around long before AirBnB arrived, such as Homeaway.

I just hope that the powerful lobbyists representing the hotel chains, to whom AirBnB poses a threat, aren't allowed to sway and/or influence the debate.

Dialogue is good, but when I read your the use of the words "outsider" and "steamroller' it suggests to me a level of negative emotion that might make such dialogue difficult.

I know of no other business that goes to the trouble of canvassing
locals - or giving them any kind of veto power - before setting up.

Real estate and commercial developers do it all the time. They come before the local governing body and the public, present their project, and the public (whoever is interested) and the city or town weighs in. The projects are judged according to local laws and other principles, and politicians in theory listen to their constituents' concerns (and they often require the developer to make changes to the project before final approval). At least that's a transparent process that allows the public to have a voice. What's wrong with that? The fact that there are NIMBY-ists is immaterial - both proponents of the project and non-proponents have an equal chance to be heard.

The problem is that local laws haven't evolved to deal with something like Airbnb, and they really don't speak to Airbnb operations. Local politicians should have led the way to these discussions, but instead they are scrambling to catch up.

There are already examples of models where Airbnb worked more constructively with localities than in the past (I prefer the honey approach myself rather than purely adversarial which just resulted in more lawsuits and anger). It looks like Airbnb wisened up a bit and realized there were better ways to achieve their goals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/technology/new-orleans-airbnb-model.html

Holiday room and apartment rentals have been the norm in certain parts of Europe for decades, and many of these people now advertise on Airbnb, so they cannot all be painted with the same brush.

It seems to be a big city problem. I can well understand the frustration of locals affected by rowdy temporary guests next door, and that these rentals could possibly push up rental rates in general. But is a vacation rental on Cape Cod any different in principle to a vacation rental in Manhattan? They are both tourist destinations. I very rarely stay in hotels and definitely would not do so in New York.

I don't have an answer as to people in big cities who are looking for supplemental income by renting out a spare room, or doing the same by moving out of their apartments temporarily. Nor do I possess the knowledge as to when landlords in popular destinations reach the break-even point with regards to vacationing as opposed to permanent tenants.

I know of no other business that goes to the trouble of canvassing
locals - or giving them any kind of veto power - before setting up.

It's called a Planning Board.
Do a search on YouTube and you will find thousands of hours of footage.

I just hope that the powerful lobbyists representing the hotel chains,
to whom AirBnB poses a threat, aren't allowed to sway and/or influence
the debate.

So you are suggesting Airbnb does't do the same??? Last year they spent over a half million dollars in lobbying activities New York State alone. Making them the top spending lobbying group in the state surpassing the teacher unions. During the same period the the Hotel industry only spent half as much.
https://tinyurl.com/ycfcga6o

"Real estate and commercial developers do it all the time. They come before the local governing body and the public, present their project, and the public (whoever is interested) and the city or town weighs in."

So developers abide by the law. Any invitation for locals to participate is on the basis that their complaints must involve some contravention of those laws, and that's it. Locals have no power beyond that carried in the planning laws. Even then, it might be that a developer meets all the requirements for planning approval but, once the building goes up, they rent some or all of it out to people who proceed to make life hard for neighbours.

Like I said, holiday lets must abide by the law, like any business. However, I'm pretty sure that, if all owners needed the approval of everybody living within a 300 metre radius, there would be no such thing as Homeaway, Stayz or AirBnB, because so many people would simply say 'No' automatically if they aren't going to derive some benefit. This is why, even with new development projects, the wishes of locals are not given unqualified precedence.

"It's called a Planning Board. Do a search on YouTube and you will find thousands of hours of footage."

Well I never! Who'd have thought it!

In fact, I work in that very area (urban research), so I know full well what's involved. There is a big difference between giving residents an opportunity to point out any potential contravention of planning rules and giving them a power of veto above and beyond planning laws. If such a thing was allowed, development and the establishment of any business would grind to a halt.

I have attended planning meetings for everything from a redevelopment of a single private dwelling, to the establishment of a mine. Take it from me, some people are happy to protest without knowing anything about the project or being personally affected in any way.

It seems to be a big city problem. I can well understand the
frustration of locals affected by rowdy temporary guests next door,
and that these rentals could possibly push up rental rates in general.

I very rarely stay in hotels and definitely would not do so in New York.

Our building in midtown Manhattan is a rental building and our lease stipulates that renting out our apartments breaks the lease. So "temporary guests next door" is not an issue here. It doesn't mean we are freed from rowdy people however. Rowdy neighbors are a fact of life...until they move.

I hope and wish that AirB&B stays out of Berlin and is banned from operating there. They were in banned in past years but I don't know currently.

AirBnB is quite often a very dodgy approach. You can make huge money off AirBnB, in comparison to renting in a normal manner - 3x-6x the standard rent. As such, AirBnB is a direct threat to normal renters. I am becoming more concerned about the approach. Fortunately, it is clear that many cities are being pressured to regulate, force AirBnB landlords to pay rental taxes, and often forbidding the AirBnB approach period, due to the impact on normal non-tourist renters. I think this is going to be more prevalent in the future.

There is a big difference between giving residents an opportunity to
point out any potential contravention of planning rules and giving
them a power of veto above and beyond planning laws.

Airbnb as a overnight stay concept outside the traditional lodging model was not covered by any local laws in many localities at all. No one is talking about veto power, just ability to influence the dialogue. There may be existing laws about "short-term rentals" but those typically have a much longer span than an Airbnb rental (overnight vs. one week vs. 30 days vs. 6 months, as an example). My point was that local residents should have a seat at the table when the locality is making a brand new policy that covered overnight rentals - meaning how should they be treated exactly, and what (if any difference) in treatment with more traditional lodging establishments. As for the comment about excluding hotels from trying to influence legislation, that doesn't sound democratic to me and I take no side with the traditional hotels. They are an interest group, just like Airbnb is an interest group, and local residents are an interest group, so to say they should be shut out from having their biased opinions heard does not seem right. Some folks don't seem to understand the difference between short-term rentals which are registered as a business and allegedly collect taxes and comply with other business rules versus the earliest days of Airbnb when they were flying by the seat of their pants and were happy to close their eyes and ears when genuine concerns were voiced about their operations. Airbnb has made plenty of concessions and cleaned up their act since then, and that should be applauded. But there are still spots where there are legitimate issues - how to accommodate this type of concept in areas where there are severe housing constraints, lack of affordable housing, etc.

PS. I realize Steves_8 is based in Australia so there may be a whole host of differences in experience between Australia, the US, and select localities in the US.

I use Airbnb as often as I can. Just like Continental said, we are a family for whom apartment rentals make travel affordable (because we are 5 and because we can cook meals).
However, there is a trend in the Airbnb model whereby "landlords" are increasingly made up of groups of youngish persons who go in on an apartment together and then rent it our as a business. They side-step regulations by staying in the apartment for the required number of days, or by, in the case of owning a whole building, staying in a small space in the building and renting out the apartments. This is what raises rents for locals and dramatically reduces apartment supply. It is less and less a case of locals renting out their own apartments and sleeping on a friend's couch. This is what troubles me, and troubles me as a user of Airbnb (because I think that these business-model types of Airbnb rentals are fairly easy to spot). I dont want to support this, and yet it is in part what makes our travel possible.
Amsterdam is an alarming case in point. It pains me to see how fast and dramatically Airbnb business-model rentals have taken over, and the increase in how much they are charging. Regulation regulation regulation.

However, there is a trend in the Airbnb model whereby "landlords" are
increasingly made up of groups of youngish persons who go in on an
apartment together and then rent it our as a business.

I stayed in one of those in Charleston, SC once because hotel rates in the historical quarter are astronomical ($300-$500 and north). It was the most "hack", improvised, and unprofessional outfit. There's something to be said about a properly managed property, not one run by recent college graduates. I made peace with the fact that I'll gladly stay outside of the historical quarter at a place I can comfortably afford - no one has a "right" to expensive lodging in the center of town.

I liked Airbnb when it was truly someone renting out their room and living in the same space...they called it the "sharing economy" (pretty quaint characterization compared to now). Once Wall Street and investors caught a wind of the financial potential of Airbnb, they came in quickly and now you have multiple-investor owned units in very expensive cities like my own and adjacent. I have no issue with investors but localities shouldn't always give them preference over their own residents. There's gotta be balance. In my own condo and against the Bylaws, one enterprising investor was charging multiples for a one-night stay relative to their monthly rent/mortgage (it was the equivalent of over 6k per month if rented for the full month for a 2-bd place - who wouldn't want that kind of money?)

One thing that hasn't been touched on is the grand consolidation of hotel chains into huge conglomerates. Hilton owns how many other chains now? That's just one example. In some cities - I'm thinking Austin and Nashville - there is literally very little competition due to the concentration of high-end hotels. One one hand, the more expensive hotels really brought up the standards of lower tier ones (Red Roof Inn is one example - looks very nice, modern and clean now). That's a good thing. But in some cities, hotels are really, really expensive. They are clearly geared toward business travelers. Oh well. There is always the option of staying on the outskirts and/or traveling off season. Using Airbnb is not an inevitable option.

I agree too that Rick didn't really weigh in here, just offered a platform for an interesting discussion. Predictably, there are those in this thread on both sides as to their views of AirBnb. For my personal view as a traveler it has been unquestionably a wonderful service that offers affordable experiences for families and travelers relative to traditional hotels and other lodging establishments. I can certainly understand concerns about the impact on local communities. I will continue to stay in AirBnb places that I believe are complying with the local rules (e.g., posting the 13 digit registration code in Paris). If a city bans AirBnb entirely, I wouldn't use that service there. But most of the places I'm aware of have recognized that, with proper regulation, AirBnb is a good thing. I don't see it as practical to try put the genie back in the bottle anymore than it is practical to say that Uber or other services should be banned because they offer a competitive and in many cases improved service that challenges traditional business models.

We only use hotels and will never use AirB&B. A neighbor rented out their house one summer, they went to the Jersey Shore, to a group of college students. It was a nightmare - drinking, smoking pot, loud music till all hours of the night during the week and weekend. We are in a residential neighborhood of families, many with small children. It was not pretty. Many, many calls to the owners and AirB&B resulted in nothing. Needless to say, I know they have tried to clean up their act, but it is too late for us.

Put me down as someone who thinks there needs to be regulations but not ban Air B&B. While it can be good for a family, I do think it's rather odd when people think they will live like the locals by staying somewhere. Having stayed at two flats on my travels, I found as a single person it was rather lonely, though I did meet some lovely neighbors in Spain. Figuring out how to use appliances and trying to contact someone when a light burned out and a fuse blew was a nightmare. I found my preferred stay is at an aparthotel, where there is a front desk if you need it-but also have a small kitchen.

The majority of my overseas AirBnB experiences have certainly brought me into contact with more locals than would have been the case had we stayed in hotels. Sometimes this has been just the owners, but there are a few cases where we really felt like we were visiting friends. The best example was a little house we rented in Tuscany where the owner invited us along to a village celebration a couple of days into our stay, and the other villagers seemed really happy to have us there - it was a fantastic day.

We have had this experience repeated many times over the years, even before we started to use AirBnB, when we used Gite de France or other holiday home rentals. In France where we rented a tiny farmhouse in the Vendee, the owner kindly took our son, aged five, aboard his tractor while he ploughed the adjacent field. Little Paul was thrilled and climbed down afterwards with the biggest grin we ever saw! On another occasion, a neighbour who spoke only a little English asked me to translate the instructions on a swimming pool repair kit, then we set about the repair between us. We were then invited over the next evening for a BBQ and struck up a lovely friendship.

These were all experiences that we would not have enjoyed had we stuck to hotels.

Im with Steve-8, Agnes and others who support regulated but continued use of Airbnb. I think you can almost always tell when a place is one of those business-type rentals rather than owned by a family or individual. And I agree that I would rather stay out of the city center but in a real person's home. I scour pictures of the places and read reviews ( in addition to making sure they are registered, especially in more regulated places like Paris), and have managed to find real gems, where I am met by the owner and sometimes given extensive tours of the area and restaurant recommendations; "tell them you know me and they'll give you a discount", etc. And again, because we are a family of 5, and European hotels especially often will not allow 5 in a room, we would have to rent two rooms. So yes, I absolutely think there is a role for Airbnb, but I would like it to hew as closely as possible to the original intent --

Like most things in life, Air BNB isn't good or bad. Just like Uber, every time I read an anti-Air BNB story, I look carefully to see who is behind it as I well know that it is the hotel industry that has their ox being gored. Anti-gentrification and neighborhood activists are quite vocal, but it has been that way before the Air BNB explosion. I live in a relatively new apartment building in Chicago that replaced a surface parking lot, near a train station, that has far too much parking because that was the only way they could get permission to build it since the activists were up in arms about their precious parking spaces. Of course, most of the residents here don't drive and just use the CTA . I don't think a lot of rent pressures in big cities are due to Air BNB, it's a very complex issue, but I think most of it comes down to the awful recession and slow recovery on top with very polarized politics in big cities. I can see how Air BNB might have an influence on property availability in resort towns or ski towns.

Personally, I don't use Air BNB, it doesn't make sense for me as a solo traveler or perhaps with a friend. I have no interest in cooking my own meals, nor figuring out quirky appliances or showers. I also don't like the idea of having to arrange key pickup and drop off as well as complying with a bunch of rules. And, of course, many of them are in residential neighborhoods. Now, that can be good depending on the city if it is a city that has neighborhoods that are near the city centre and it isn't an inconvenience to get to the tourist attractions I want to see.

I can see how it might make sense for a family that is staying in one city for 5 days or more, especially if you have a picky eater. And, I can see how it can help save sanity to have more space for a family traveling together and reduce the stress of being in close quarters.

I posted a few times on this thread, but then pulled the posts because i really didnt want to get involved in a pointless argument. The gross over generalizations lead me to believe that many of those opposed are driven by over arching political ideology which no amount of argument is going to change. Still, just as an aside, i will recount one experience. Keep in mind, we arent talking generalities. This is very specific and each street in each city is also a specific issue. There is no general BAD or GOOD and I think that's what RS was getting at.

In my favorite city 15 years ago a substantial number of the inner city apartments were owned by those living in them when the Soviet Occupation ended. In other words they inherited them from the state. By that time a great majority of the owners were pensioners barely squeaking by and the apartment blocks were often unsafe and in most cases in serious decay.

Despite the conditions this American tourist fell in love with the city and in a few years negoiataed a sale with one of the pensioners. The dear woman who sold me her apartment took the Dollars and had an opportunity for the first time in her life to move to a home with a garden to live out her retirement. To this date, this is not an untypical scenario.

I've since purchased a second in the same building under similar circumstances.

The cost of the renovations equaled the purchase price in both instances and if I had decided at that time to rent them long term I could have gotten twice the rates of any other apartment in the building simply because they were clean, safe, had air conditioning and modern appliances. When they became short term rentals i realized the facade of the building was going to drive away profits so I, at my expense, repaired it and repainted it. That act increased the rental potential long and short term for every apartment in the building. First question: would you prefer i had left them and the building in dilapidated conditons (edited for Agnes) so it would be more affordable for renters?

My actions were followed by other owners in the building who now, because of the increased value of their apartments, to take similar measures. Again, this increased the rental potential.

Statistically 85% of the people in this country own their homes. Applying that to my building I would expect that 34 apartments in the building were owned, and 14 rented out and 2 belonging to me. So while 14 renters paid more, 34 owners had increased their worth; worth that could be cashed in for their children's education or retirement or any number of things.

Of the other 14, I would imagine at some point in time they would be priced out of the building unless they were able to increase their status in life. How could they do that? Well, with the short term rentals came tourists with disposable income and it wasn't long before my little side street attracted amenities to serve the tourists. Amenities that came with tourist prices. Extend the concept across the breath of the city and salaries began to rise; remarkably substantially over the 15 years I have been there. Second question: How do you weigh the welfare of the 34 against the welfare of the 14?

This is a democratic country and better yet, the city is divided into over 20 districts, each with a large degree of self rule. As the concept took off problems evolved. Those problems have been met with legislation which when weighed by the voters, based on their needs, desires and cultural is addressing those problems. Not perfectly, but intelligently. Third question: Good or Bad, who am i to criticize the wishes of citizens in a country that i am a guest in? Wishes based on their vales, their situation, their judgments of what is best for their neighborhood

Next issue, drunken pot smoking rabble raisers? We've been in operation about 10 years now. In the ten years there has been ZERO vandalism or damage to either apartment. ZERO. No police visits and no complaints from other tenants. Actually the tenants have at times been very helpful to our guests. For perspective ten years is about 4000 rental nights.

The short term rental makes 3 to 6x more than long term rentals. NO, in my case not. I think i would net out the same either way. The short term rental allows me to use my homes and requires a much more convenient business license.

Short term rentals are very often running illegally. Quite a few are and I suspect that in time the city will find a way, like Paris did, to curb that. I work through a management company that dots every "I" and crosses every "T". I always suggest renting through a professional agency as it help ensure compliance and quality.

My situation has nothing to do with the true reality. No two places are alike. I suspect that my experience would be hard to replicate in Amsterdam for one reason, and Prague for another. I also suspect that my experience would have a lot of similarities in Vienna, Sofia or Ljubljana. The only point is i think RS's observations, as far as they went, are realistic and pretty much on point when looking at the whole of Europe. Like a say, Europe is not a place, it is a collection of thousands of unique places with individual circumstances and cultures.

However, here in the United States, its use in some homes may run afoul of zoning laws or homeowner's restrictive covenants.

Same here in Europe, I.e. (let's try again).:

Here in Europe, its use in some homes may (and often does) run afoul (violate) of zoning (or other local) laws or homeowners' restrictive covenants (or condo association rules).

I do see issues with people buying up apartments and using them for airbnb, shutting out local renters - but how do anti-airbnb people feel about someone renting out a spare room? About 85% of our airbnb stays have been in a home with the person present. We have a guest bedroom that gets used for couchsurfers maybe 10 times a year, but I've been debating airbnb'ing it. It's not something I'd ever rent long term, but would be a nice way to earn money for our travels.

First question: would you prefer i had left them and the building a
dump so it would be more affordable for renters?

It's not important what we prefer. It doesn't affect us, we have no emotional attachment to it, and it's a local issue in a specific context. And I know this wasn't intended, but this comes off a bit like a savior complex because it almost sounds like you have some neighborly attachment to the place and you were its only possible savior. I understand the business motivations for an investor and take no issue with them, but would the pensioners living there like to have their building called "a dump" by an American living outside the country? No one who lives in modest circumstances would characterize their building as a dump especially if they didn't have the financial wherewithal to modernize it (this reminds me of the "Lisbon is dirty" thread). They are too proud for that and it's not their fault that they were subjected to an economic system that left them not exactly well-off (especially after reforms had to take place and those on fixed-income were affected). You would probably call the apartment I grew up in Poland a dump as well because it was a typical Soviet brutalist structure (although surprisingly nice and modern on the inside, yet small). There's no doubt that a place could always look better but putting it down that way seems condescending and paternalistic. Yes, it's probably just a matter of semantics and attitude but those are important.

As for who should weigh the tradeoffs between winners and losers and soften the blow for some, that's what a functioning government (that's accountable to its citizens) is for. All an investor can do is operate within the legal constraints and to try to be a good neighbor by respecting what's already there (people, existing buildings, and overall neighborhood environment). I think from other threads that you did gain buy-in and good support from the locals for your efforts and that's a good thing. I don't know if there were losers, who they were, and how they fared, but I'm sure by now the neighborhood is at a new economic and psychological equilibrium, so to speak. I've seen many neighborhoods in DC go that route - they've been completely transformed (in a good way for most, probably hard for some) because it started with someone taking a risk, buying up a property, putting in a lot of effort, and really restoring it to its historical potential.

So while 14 renters paid more, 34 owners had increased their worth;
worth that could be cashed in for their children's education or
retirement or any number of things.

Does the country in question allow people to pull equity out of their homes as cash? In some places higher worth on paper doesn't mean much since they will live in that home until their death (old folks don't like change - my grandmother lived in the same flat from the time she got married to her death, even though the war). The flipping and cashing out behavior and norms are not prevalent everywhere, or even possible (same with ownership/renting norms and usage of debit vs. credit for purchases).

Except for private universities abroad or specialized study like business and law, college is still "socialized" by all taxpayers (some people say "free" but that's not really accurate) in most European countries so it's not like the US where parents are pulling $ out of their retirement to pay for kids' college.

Agnes, i will give you that the word "dump" was somewhat poor choice of words; especially in an environment where intent inst as important as ideology. I will edit it to read "dilapidated"

No one who lives in modest circumstances would characterize their
building as a dump

Ive lived pretty basic at times in my life; a few of my homes were indeed dumps. So subtract my name from "No one". Did the residents see their living conditions in a negative way? I spent a bit of time with each and I would say they werent too impressed with the conditions. In one the 65 year old woman had to climb a ladder to get to a mattress on a wood frame over the sofa. No room to stand. The bathroom had a floor mop sink with a shower head on a rubber hose for for a shower. The other apartment had no shower so a fiberglass unit was purchased and put to one side of the bed. It was plumed with rubber hoses to a sink that hung on the wall. Neither had safe heating systems, weather stripping; and both had mold growing on the walls. The electrical supply was adequate for lighting only so neither had a refrigerator. The gas line serving the second apartment ran through the middle of the room in the first at about 7 feet above the floor. No, these were not atypical for the city at the time and are still pretty common outside of the tourist zone.

Savior complex? Naaaa, none of what came to happen was ever predicted. I purchased the first one for my own use having never heard of Airbnb. The only economic involved was that i would save money on hotel rooms when i was in town. On that factor alone it was profitable i guess. The second place was primarily because we had outgrown the first one. But these are first and foremost our family vacation homes; then rentals.

All the observations i made only came to mind when reading all the slamming of Airbnb. I spent quite a bit of time thinking of where I stood in that discussion. So i considered the last ten years before i drew a conclusion.

As for who should weigh the tradeoffs between winners and losers and
soften the blow for some, that's what a functioning government (that's
accountable to its citizens) is for. All an investor can do is operate
within the legal constraints and to try to be a good neighbor by
respecting what's already there (people, existing buildings, and
overall neighborhood environment).

Agnes, here we are about 98% in agreement. My definition of "respect" might be different than that of the locals, so i just stick to the law and don't try interpret the minds and hearts of people who's culture i can never fully understand.

And do understand, my contribution here is just a "case study", not the answer to any great debate. I just wanted to point out that Poland and the UK are different and one can not make intelligent or meaningful blanket statements about things way beyond ones knowledge base.

And yes, I love my second city and I have "bought in" at every level possible. I pay taxes, i work with charities, i promote the city and the businesses in my neighborhood. I try and help visitors understand and get the most out of their trip, because tourism is so important to the health of the city. I have a better social life there than i do here and i have as many close friends there as here. But I am and will always be a guest in their culture. The overall health of the City is very important to me. To that end i follow the lead of the locals who establish the norms.

Does the country in question allow people to pull equity out of their
homes as cash? In some places higher worth on paper doesn't mean much
since they will live in that home until their death (old folks don't
like change - my grandmother lived in the same flat from the time she
got married to her death, even though the war). The flipping and
cashing out behavior and norms are not prevalent everywhere, or even
possible (same with home ownership and usage of debit vs. credit for
purchases).

Agnes, good point and it illustrates that every place is unique. First, yes, they can take out a mortgage to get value out. But as every place is unique, my city had a unique thing going on at the time where these home owners didnt pick their homes, they were put there by the government. At that time, and to a lesser degree now, they were all pensioners and they had no way out of the dilapidated conditions. Both that i dealt with were anxious to get out and purchase more modern and more comfortable housing. But, again, thats not a blanket statement, just two folks in two situations. This would not be the situation in Amsterdam for instance. (and again, none of this crossed my mind until this debate began). As for college money, listen I am not going to try and define what people should have to or want to spend their money on. Lets just leave it at they by selling or financing they have more opportunities in life for them selves and those they loved.

Except for private universities abroad or specialized study like
business and law, college is still "socialized" by all taxpayers (some
people say "free" but that's not really accurate) in most European
countries so it's not like the US where parents are pulling $ out of
their retirement to pay for kids' college.

Really off topic here, but with unemployment falling to under 4% and so few people completing university in my field its hard to find help. I've had to turn to foreign nationals for a number of years now and the only way that has been possible is to hire them while they were attending a US university. So studying abroad (in the US) has become a fairly popular tool for relocating to the US (which a few folks in developing countries have expressed some interest in). My staff is now a majority foreign nationals because someone found them the money to go to a US university. I would be lost with out them.

how do anti-airbnb people feel about someone renting out a spare room?

To me (if I qualify as anti-AirBnB, and I suppose mostly I do), this is exactly what AirBnB is supposed to be. Where individuals can earn a little cash and visitors can stay somewhere a little closer in for cheaper.

Anyway, on a separate aspect of this: we can't paint all AirBnB owners with the same brush -- some are small mom & pops, or apartment owners like me, for example if I tried to rent out my apartment while I'm away for a few weeks each year. Next are the people who are buying apartments (or houses, in relevant markets) specifically to rent 24/7 as part of the "sharing" economy. And finally are the people who are building businesses around buying up a LOT of properties and renting them out 24/7. The latter two are obviously the ones who most disrupt the housing market in any given location, with the very last group being the most disruptive by far, whether it's a resort town like a ski town that needs housing for lift and restaurant workers, or a major city.

...as part of the "sharing" economy...

Sharing, schmaring. Please stop parroting this lie.

There's no "sharing" involved with any of these businesses. None. Uber, Airbnb, and all the others are for-profit businesses. The day they start letting anyone use their cars/apartments/whatever -- for free -- is when you can start calling this "sharing". Until then, they're in it for the money, same as Hilton, Hertz, the Trump Organization or la Cosa Nostra.

Not saying that any of them are any more or less evil (or saintly) than any other for-profit business. But they are businesses.

Calling any of these things "sharing" is deceptive.

Rick shares much good information.

Rick shares much good information.

True. This forum is free. No ads, too. All the PBS shows and the classes, etc. Yes, all those do help support his business - eyes open.

My issue is not that these (any of them) are businesses. My issue is that some refer to themselves as a "sharing service" - which is a complete crock.

"My issue is that some refer to themselves as a "sharing service" - which is a complete crock."

True - they're in for the extra money. I think of my hosting couchsurfers for free - and even feeding them and picking them up/dropping them off if they don't have a car, and showing them our town - as a true 'sharing service'. If we airbnb'd our spare room, I wouldn't be doing it out of the goodness of my heart. ;)

All of the non-residebt AirBnb owners I know do it as a means to be able to own a second home, not to create real income. Sure, they price them at what the market will pay, but in most cities that I am aware of, there isn't a lot of profit in the business; but it does pay the mortgage. Still, it's absolutely not social sharing.

For social sharing is like to see every tourist donate to a charity in each place they visit. As a way of saying thank you for inviting us into your home.

Sure, they price them at what the market will pay, but in most cities
that I am aware of, there isn't a lot of profit in the business; but
it does pay the mortgage.

It really depends on what the spread between owning vs. renting is, and that's very local. Over time and with multiple refinancing to get rock bottom interest rates, there can be quite a profit to be made if you can charge hotel-like overnight rates for a certain number of nights vs your monthly mortgage for which interest can be written off. The most profit one can make is obviously if you're living someplace and renting out a spare room in that same place - that's pure profit because it's an underutilized or totally unused resource that you can suddenly monetize with no opportunity cost except your privacy (and of course if you had some specific use of that room, like a study, that is now foregone). That's was the initial pitch of Airbnb and it worked because it's convincing.

For those folks who rent out their spare room, I am guessing that the Airbnb platform now provides adequate liability insurance, right? You just never know if someone would make a claim against you because they slipped on something or hurt themselves. Your homeowner's insurance would not likely cover a commercial use of your property, just like Uber has to cover commercial use of your car because your individual insurance won't do.

Sharing, schmaring. Please stop parroting this lie.

There's no "sharing" involved with any of these businesses. None.

David: That's why I put it in air quotes!! I guess my brilliant use of that rhetorical device failed to register. hee hee

in most cities that I am aware of, there isn't a lot of profit in the business; but it does pay the mortgage

That sounds like a pretty good profit to me!

(i.e. building equity in a property that one owns is definitely an advantage)

Just because it's not going into one's pocket for other expenses doesn't mean it's not turning a profit!

I think the fact that some people seem outraged by holiday let owners making money from the venture hints at an agenda beyond that of potential nuisance.

Kim, it's a depender.

Let's say I net 4% othe original investment. That would be 1.5% on its current value. Bad investment. But what it does illustrate that in my city, in or near the tourist zone, I doubt anyone could purchase an apartment and make any money with short term rentals. I suspect owners like me will start cashing out and prices may dip a tiny bit as a result. But long term, now that the apartments, apartment buildings and neighborhhods have been renovated, brought up to code, etc; the "displaced" people will never be able to afford to return unless their income has improved.

Me? It's my retirement home so I am in for the long haul.

Steves8, yup.

Thanks...a BIG thanks to James E for bringing some common sense to this issue and trying to pry it away from those that continually misrepresent or misunderstand or just hate Airbnb.

This argument reminds me of the similar one you used to hear so much of about McDonald's. "The vile McD Corp was taking over the world and forcing American food values and culture on the poor unsuspecting (fill in any country here)." Well the truth always was and still is that McD's is a FRANCHISE organization. If you hate that McD's is in Sofia or Beijing you have a LOCAL BUSINESS person to blame. Not the corporation.

The same is true for AirBnb's. It is your neighbor who in the vast majority of cases is reaching out to AIRBNB not the other way around.

There is a lot of axe grinding going on over this issue. And I am frankly left dumbfounded at how many here who write about Airbnb while knowing very little about it and in all likelihood have never stayed in one.

Airbnb is a brilliant concept that is clearly being driven by very high demand from millions of people who clearly see it's potential and want to travel outside of the old hotel paradigm.
Does it pose challenges and threaten the entrenched interests of the large hotel chains..
YES. And to my mind that is a good thing. Will there be a period of adjustment for all concerned ? YES. But I believe the travel industry as a whole and consumers will be the winners when people get used to the idea that a change...an irreversible change has taken place in the market forces of the travel industry.

For those folks who rent out their spare room, I am guessing that the
Airbnb platform now provides adequate liability insurance, right? You
just never know if someone would make a claim against you because they
slipped on something or hurt themselves. Your homeowner's insurance
would not likely cover a commercial use of your property, just like
Uber has to cover commercial use of your car because your individual
insurance won't do.

Agnes, thanks for bringing that up as I've been curious what sort of insurance hosts have to carry, and wonder how many of them actually have it?

One example: a family of 4 in my state all perished of carbon monoxide poisoning in their rental in Mexico this past winter (malfunctioning water heater). Say that sort of tragedy occurred in someone's primary residence that they airbnb out regularly while on extended vacations, business trips or something? I'd think that owner would be in deep, deep trouble if not insured as a business.

Sound like an entry for this informative site:

https://www.airbnbhell.com/

Is it common sense that Airbnb and the like, should adhere to laws (taxation, zoning, etc.), there is an impact on neighborhoods and availability of rentals for working families?

Ahem! I can understand hotel owners frustrations. They have do go through lots of laws/regulation/mandated expense to open, and operate and maintain their properties. The rules should be the same for everyone.

Kathy,
This will answer your question about the carbon monoxide detectors and insurance (yes they do have both; they don't require smoke/carbon detectors but they try to subsidize it for a limited number of people and it's flagged as an amenity in the listing; also not all localities require them, oddly enough, and its unclear what takes precedence - I guess that would be for lawyers to fight over).
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/514/what-is-airbnb-doing-to-help-hosts-make-their-homes-safer-for-guests
https://www.airbnb.com/host-protection-insurance

I followed Airbnb ever since they launched and read just about every article that comes my way. I remember the early days when there was no such insurance that came with the Airbnb product. Fortunately Airbnb evolved (due to some mishaps with property damage that put them on the defense and they had to react). On paper, it looks like they've CYA but I don't know how it plays out in reality.

It is your neighbor who in the vast majority of cases is reaching out
to AIRBNB not the other way around.

Airbnb is not that passive - they would not have gotten to where they are if they didn't assert themselves. Remember that they're pushing a lodging concept that didn't exist before (in the same form). They have to expand in existing/ new markets including developing countries, and with new product lines (some of which have to be tweaked - it's not a one-size-fits-all in every market), which they're doing. They are quite savvy/ sophisticated, in fact, they have tons of engineers, data scientists and MBAs on their staff working on new business models. They don't just sit back and wait for one-way engagement. No disruptor can afford to do that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-12/airbnb-branded-apartment-buildings-are-coming-to-the-u-s
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/airbnbs-home-hotel-hybrid-will-open-in-florida-next-year/
https://skift.com/2018/04/04/tenants-of-new-airbnb-branded-complex-in-florida-feel-blindsided/

Ahem! I can understand hotel owners frustrations. They have do go
through lots of laws/regulation/mandated expense to open, and operate
and maintain their properties. The rules should be the same for
everyone.

Well, the rules can't be the same because the businesses are not the same. But why would you think shirt term rentals don't pay taxes and aren't subject to rules and laws? Of curse they do and are.

"But why would you think shirt term rentals don't pay taxes and aren't subject to rules and laws? Of curse they do and are." While comforting, that's not the the case here where the overwhelming bulk of these rentals do not meet zoning, taxation and other laws, although such violators are being ferreted out and being made to comply with laws or close.

that's not the the case here where the overwhelming bulk of these
rentals do not meet zoning, taxation and other laws

Overwhelming bulk? Where did you get that from?

Hi James E. The source of my information is the city as reported in our local (non-fake) news outlets. The estimated compliance rate is about 13%, thus a firm has been hired to identify nightly rentals failing to meet zoning, taxation and other requirements and help bring them into compliance. This makes for a fairer business environment given nightly rentals, including hotels, that are in compliance. Of course, the issue of affordable housing for working families being squeezed and having to move out of town, and other related negative impacts, is the elephant in the room.

https://www.airbnbhell.com/

A site with ads for HomeAway and VRBO on the home page. Without "About Us", and with solicitation for donation.

Without "About Us"

https://www.airbnbhell.com/why-airbnbhell-exists/

Airbnb lists 148 rentals in/around Centerville, Ohio

So, what goes in Whitefish, Montana goes the world over? The sort of over generalization that distorts reality. But it sounds like they are getting it under control which is the purpose of governments; to establish laws at the will of the people and to enforce those laws. Well done Whitefish!

Of course, the issue of affordable housing for working families being
squeezed and having to move out of town, and other related negative
impacts, is the elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is the specter of socialized housing, rent-control and asset confiscation.

And it looks like someone has turned Airbnb hatred into a business. I love capitalism.. no seriously.

How does concern for other people of lesser means (the ones who serve your food at restaurants, clean hotel rooms, work at retail establishments, or even teach at local schools) equal "the specter of socialized housing, rent-control and asset confiscation"? If you're part of a society, it's natural to at least think about others who impact your life in a positive way...those are the folks who are sitting in their cars for two hours each way in their commute. I'm not saying everyone has any right to more than they can afford, but it's galling to wholly dismiss negative impacts on these people who help make our society as convenient as it is. This is particularly true in ski and other resorts like Whitefish, upscale Colorado resorts like Aspen, etc. where the service folks live way, way out and all they do all week is to contribute to a tourist's experience, ease, fun, and relaxation.

Agnes, since you don't know anything about me, i am going to assume its a rhetorical question. I did like this part of it:

I'm not saying everyone has any right to more than they can afford,
but it's galling to wholly dismiss negative impacts on these people
who help make our society as convenient as it is.

But i am curious what do you propose?

Like I said previously, it's up to the political process (ie. the local government) to resolve tradeoffs between different goals and interest groups. All I can propose is from the perspective of a local resident. Local residents who are concerned about preservation of affordable housing in their locality need to bring their concerns to local officials and to participate in the political process like any other interest group. In my own city, an affordable housing goal and metrics are already set in the City's Strategic Plan; but it's easier said then done, so citizens need to hold their local politicians accountable. Airbnb should be part of the overall dialogue about how to treat, regulate, and tax short-term lodging which affects overall availability and affordability of the total housing stock, and all interested parties should take part in this dialogue and hear each other out. In saying this, I am not putting any disproportionate blame on Airbnb for a shortage of affordable housing - just saying that it's a piece of the puzzle and needs to be included in the housing conversation.

Agnes, we agree 100%

A democratic process is hard to beat.

in the 1990s, we lived in a cheap apartment by the beach next to a condo complex that allowed short term rentals. People cone to Florida to party on vacation, and since it’s no fun to be calling the cops at 2:00 am to break up a loud party and then get up for work at 6:00am, we were careful to buy our house in an area that banned short term rentals even in 2001.

ABB really isn’t doing much new; they’re just doing it much bigger and not respecting that some of us want nothing to do with short term renters and their problems and picked a place to live where those locusts are not supposed to be an issue.

One of the things that concerns me about this discussion is the oft repeated claim that AirBnb is depriving lower income folks from affordable rentals.

A little background here on my experience with AirBnb. I have spent the last Year researching, planning and now engaging in a four month trip to Europe. We chose to look into AirBnb early on and I looked at literally hundreds of them in about ten different countries. Also I stayed in an AirBnb near my home for two weeks. So far I have stayed in 5 in Europe with 3 more to go. They have all been great. We have been welcomed with hospitality and open arms by the neighbors and neighborhoods.

Most of the AirBnb properties that I have seen or have stayed in are not those that would be affordable to lower income folks regardless of whether they were rentals or owned. Now I was looking at only those properties where I could occupy the entire house or apartment. The idea that the AirBnb where you are staying in a room in someone’s house similar to the traditional B&B is depriving someone of a low cost rental is just nonsensical. This old canard is thrown out every time this subject comes up. Many many of the most desirable AirBnb properties are in the HEART of very expensive cities like Rome, Paris, New York or my little town of Oxford MD etc where there is NO low income rentals available anyway. The people looking for rentals or to buy in these areas are solidly middle class or wealthy. The nearby apartments in the case of where I stayed in Paris and Rome as well as Florence were Doctors, Dentists and Professors and Lawyers...they were not the immigrant vegetable vendor down on the corner.

If you look carefully at who is making these allegations in the press, they are generally advocates for the homeless and for low income housing to be built in areas like downtown SF. My guess is they are getting donations from the Large Hotel Associations as these are the people who stand to actually suffer loss from AirBnb.

The second argument that just holds no logical water for me that is often brought out in this discussion is the “Gang of rowdy college student party next door” one. Again under scrutiny I find it not credible.

For one thing there is a HUGE incentive for any property owner to be very careful who he rents to. Damage to property and neighbor relations is expensive. Second, Airbnb hosts can and DO RATE you as a guest. (To my knowledge it is the only platform that does this) So if you have misbehaved and damaged something it is visible and knowable to other hosts. Third, every AirBnb property has a line in it’s listing indicating whether parties or events are allowed. I have yet to see one that does allow them. (I am sure they exist however) Fourth, I am at a loss to know just how those that proffer this argument know FOR CERTAIN that the disturbance was an AirBnb rental? That would be impossible for them to discern as many many listings are on other platforms as well. The answer to this problem is NOT more regulation. It is getting to know your neighbors and working with them and other stakeholders to make reasonable rules of conduct.

While I understand the concerns of folks like Agnes and appreciate their position I am left with the conclusion that while their complaints and concerns are real their target of complaint is the wrong one. And as many critics of airbnb on this forum admit they have never stayed in one or even looked at doing so. How can one form a truly balanced perspective on something so complex without experiencing it, talking to a number of Hosts and working with the system?

where there is NO low income rentals available anyway.

When housing supply decreases it effects all income groups. When those wealthy professionals in the city center can't find properties they will move to more outlying areas eventually pushing those longtime residents out etc etc. Pushing low-income folks way past the suburbs, making commutes into the city center for work more expensive to those who can afford it the least afford it. The act of staying in Airbnb's in a handful of European cities doesn't make anyone an expert on the plight of the working-poor. Here's a an article about a study on the effects of Abnb on rising rents in the US (not paid for the the hotel industry):

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/08/where-airbnb-is-raising-rents/535674/

Selkie, my biggest push back is the over generalizations and the inability of some to accept the concept that the citizens of a community know what's best for their community and implement those beliefs through democratic processes. If I lived in Amsterdam I wouldn't want some one in Montana telling me I was right or wrong in the decisions (legislation) made in my community.

If you read above you will see that I have a couple AirBnBs and haven't experienced any of the circumstances presented here as the norm.

But it's an interesting conversation.

..and I wouldn't want someone owning nightly rentals in another country telling me I was right or wrong in the decisions made in my community, as well as fully understanding the impacts of displacing working families. We totally agree.

Bruce, we do agree. Great! An interesting quote from an earlier post.

Still, just as an aside, i will recount one experience. Keep in mind,
we arent talking generalities. This is very specific and each street
in each city is also a specific issue. There is no general BAD or GOOD

and

No two places are alike. I suspect that my experience would be hard to
replicate in Amsterdam for one reason, and Prague for another. I also
suspect that my experience would have a lot of similarities in Vienna,
Sofia or Ljubljana. The only point is i think RS's observations, as
far as they went, are realistic and pretty much on point when looking
at the whole of Europe. Like a say, Europe is not a place, it is a
collection of thousands of unique places with individual circumstances
and cultures.

"How can one form a truly balanced perspective on something so complex without experiencing it" - aarthurperry

Well you cannot. But your experience seems to be only as a user and beneficiary of AirBnB. Have you, for instance, been a neighbour of someone renting their apartment to a constantly changing stream of tourists? Or have you been priced out of your local area because greedy landlords can make more short-term letting than renting to a longer term resident? As you say, without experiencing it, you cannot be balanced.

I make no claim to be truly balanced.

I believe the full quote is:

While I understand the concerns of folks like Agnes and appreciate
their position I am left with the conclusion that while their
complaints and concerns are real their target of complaint is the
wrong one. And as many critics of airbnb on this forum admit they have
never stayed in one or even looked at doing so. How can one form a
truly balanced perspective on something so complex without
experiencing it, talking to a number of Hosts and working with the
system?

I recently returned from a two week trip to Iceland, Belgium and the Netherlands and found some interesting thoughts from locals about Airbnb. The young woman who was the guide for my day touch in Iceland was discussed how she cannot find a place of her own because of all the Airbnb owners who have bought up property in Reykjavik and are using it solely for Airbnbs. Young people are priced out of buying or even renting homes in Iceland because of this.

And the gentleman who owned the B&B in Gent, Belgium I stayed at said that he is stopping his B&B service in July. He told me that he cannot compete with the Airbnbs that are moving in and replacing the old style bed and breakfasts.

I stayed at one Airbnb on my trip and that was a house in the de Pijp neighborhood in Amsterdam. However, it was a room in a couple's home and I felt like a welcome guest there. These types of properties I have no problem with - but as others have pointed out, the whole home Airbnb was probably purchased by an investor who has bought a number of properties. This bothers me.

I don't know what the solution is but I miss the old days of bed and breakfasts.

I found this whole discussion really interesting. (that website showing the increasing Airbnb's in European cities made quite an impression on me!) I myself have yet to use an AirBnB (as a woman traveler I feel more comfortable staying at an established business), but many friends have used AirBnb and have had positive experiences. I don't find Rick's comments "non-committal" but rather I find them balanced. I did hear that the CEO of Über paid hugely to influence California politicians to vote down a law which would have required him to follow the same rules as taxi companies must follow. It makes me wonder, are there regulations and taxes which hotels, established hostels, and established BnB's abide by, which AirBnB doesn't have to follow/pay? If these regulations are not necessary for the patron's safety, why do hotels have to follow them?

I'm with you on that. I miss the Europe that I loved in the 70's. The lack of government regulations on the airline industry and the advent of discount airlines has brought so many tourists to Europe that most of the historically great destinations are now look like an American Disneyland. The prices for even a simple meal have gotten so high locals have to go to the suburbs to dine out. It's ridiculous. Then guys like RS promote the back door places and they end up getting trashed too. It's everywhere. It's even getting hard to spot a horse dawn wagon in Romania it's getting so bad. How about the English stag trips! You ever seen these guys. I think the answer is 200% taxes on plane tickets. It might take a while but it would help return Europe to the place we use to love with sheep in the road to Sorrento, horse pulled wagons in the cities and good cheap local cooking and a chance to go to the top of the Eiffel tower with out having to wait in line for 2 hours. Oh, and it would end the AirBnb business for sure.

You know, i read that there are 18000 airbnbs in Barcelona alone. Thats crazy. They need to be shut down. But without replacements that would put thousands of working people out of work. They could easily be replaced by tearing down a few hundred of those worn out, dangerous old apartment blocks and replacing with shiny new Hotels. Hotels that have to play by the rules! No, i prefer the airline taxes i think... or matbe a little of both. Half the tourists dont appreciate where they are anyway.

The profound changes to the European travel experience that James E laments are part of a much, much bigger trend, and one that won't be reversed by imposing taxes. While I too miss the kind of care-free (and crowd-free) experience I loved on my early trips to Europe, I think those days are gone forever.

It's not just AirBnB. It's not just cheap air fares. It's not just cruise ships. And it's not just Europe. From Seattle to Wrocław to Whitefish Bay, there are more (a lot more) people traveling. Things have changed with the passage of time and worldwide demographic and economic trends. Travel to Europe has always been seen as a luxury, a sign of success. It should surprise no one that the newly emerged middle class from the world's most populous countries want to see the Mona Lisa and post a selfie from Cinque Terre. Same for folks from all corners of the globe who have been the subjects of very effective, ongoing marketing efforts; nearly every day, my iPhone-addicted spouse shows me some photo (heavily and clumsily edited in Photoshop to make the place appear utterly surreal) posted on social media, and says "hey, let's go here - it looks really cool!" (ironically, more than once the photo she showed me was of someplace we had actually been before, but it was so heavily retouched, it was hard to recognize). There hasn't been a world war or other tremendous calamity (at least that had a major impact on countries that tend to generate international tourists) for a long time. The world economy has been humming along for a few years now, some folks have accumulated plenty of disposable income and want to have fun - who can blame them?

Travel is a very big business these days. I don't think one can put the genie back in the bottle.

I don't know how others deal with this. For me, in recent years, I've chosen to avoid popular places and look towards places that are more on the periphery (and when I find someplace amazing that isn't completely overrun with tourists, I'm more careful about encouraging masses of visitors to go there). I still occasionally go to well-known places that I haven't hit yet, but I spend less time in them and use them as a jumping off place for travel to places most of my friends have never heard of. I may never make it to Cinque Terre at this rate (still an active discussion in my house), but I'm more confident I'll get to Ulan Bator and other more obscure but still interesting places.

To each their own. Vive la difference.

I have only stayed in a few AirBnb in the US, but had good experiences! The owners left a detailed binder of useful information like local restaurants and things to do. It is challenging to find hotels for a family of 5! Especially when they grew up to teenagers! We were not able to find any bed and breakfasts and usually had to get 2 hotel rooms. Now 3 of us are traveling to Germany in July, and finding a hotel was a challenge! So I am trying Airbnb and VRBO in 3 different cities and hope they are wise choices!

Nancy, for vacation apts. in Germany, look under "Ferien Wohnungen".

How can people come on here and justify how wonderful it is, when so many towns and cities are suffering from it? I don't get it. You cannot have looked at that website I posted and not see the damage AirB&B has caused and is causing in so many cities? Just because it hasn't affected you in yet in your own home town doesn't mean it won't in the future. Put yourself in the shoes of these people and really read their complaints, not only the folks who can't find affordable apts. anymore in the cities they live in, but also the neighbors. Realize in Europe, it isn't like the in US, with houses and space around them, it is apts. buildings with usually a common door at the entrance. Strangers coming in and out on a constant basis, day after day, year after year is unnerving for those who live there. I know I wouldn't like it and I bet you wouldn't either.

Let's look at Barcelona this time:
https://dwarshuis.com/various/airbnb/barcelona/

All the more so why Airbnb will never be an option when travelling in Germany regardless of any positive arguments put forth, not interested in any such positive arguments.

I have read many surveys over the years in which residents of popular tourist destinations such as London, Paris, Rome and Venice have complained bitterly about the crowding, noise, pollution, queues, traffic, drunkeness and high prices for everything that comes with tourism generally.

I guess the people on here who argue against AirBnB on the basis that some residents' lives are impacted won't be travelling to Europe any more because of the aforementioned harm that tourism similarly does?

I really believe that the market will correct itself and a lot of those short term rentals will close. The town i run mine in is already on the verge of a correction.

steves_8,

If for what ever reason a person does not feel comfortable with staying in an Airbnb, i respect that. Unfortunately there tends to be hostility at times towards those with differing opinions. I've never been so sure of anything in my life that would cause me to feel hostility towards someone regarding a subject as trivial as Airbnb. When i relate one specific example i receive terms like "savior complex" for instance. Its why i have so much respect for people like Fred. There isn't a person on this forum that i have more respect for, and yet we disagree on this issue like adults should disagree.

Life has also taught me that a group that opposes the status quo will be a lot more vocal than one that is content. So all those arguments against short term rentals on the internet, while worth considering, are not necessarily the broad opinion of the society from which they come. Take politics for example. A man will win the election and the minority that lost will publish and scream and cry how terrible he is. You would be certain that this is an evil man. Yet, when the polls open, he gets reelected. I trust the vote of the people to more accurately represent the feelings of the community as a whole. In the case of short term rentals those voices are really grass roots and can be powerful. Starting with condo organizations who can ban it, then neighborhood zoning, the city and national laws. When they take no action I presume that the majority is receptive to what is going on.

This isn't, or shouldn't be, an argument so much about airbnb as one about tourism in general. When 3,000,000 tourists converge on Prague on any given year there is going to be an impact. There will be winners and losers. "Working People" will be displaced (I work 60 hours a week, do i qualify?). Prices will escalate with or with out airbnb. The quality of life, good and bad, will be altered. That which was, will no longer be. I heard an interesting term this morning: "society is a verb".

I guess my main difference is that I have little trust in government. My life experience has been that the market will always, eventually, find a better balance than any group of men in a marble building. I'm watching that play out in my investment city right now. In part because of the Airbnbs, and in part due to thousands of other factors, the quality of many neighborhoods has risen increasing the value of the real estate. Now long term rentals are becoming more profitable than short term rentals. And there is no shortage of takers because the tourism has raised wages making the improved housing more affordable. But its 1000x more complex than that.

None of this precludes a grass roots uprising. If enough tourists are bothered by airbnb, then they will stay away and change will be effected. But you are attempting to shape the communities you don't even live in, or have an inkling of an understanding of, based on some personal cultural bias. Is that the right thing to do? You are picking life's winners and life's losers in a society you don't belong to; and with very little knowledge of the actual conditions or the end result of your decisions. But i do have to respect the fact that when one has a set of beliefs and one is willing to defend that set and act accordingly. Its called being true to oneself and that can be a very admirable trait.

My personal experiences with Airbnb, from both sides, doesn't match up with any of the negativity i have read here. I have shared a common wall with a short term rental for about a year without one single issue. I have owned short term rentals with no incidents of parties, noise, destruction or rudeness (with thousands of nights of rental). I have neighbors who have shared this experience with me without voicing complaint; the have actually been kind and generous to the renters. I have a condo association made up of tenants of the building which has no desire to change the rules, i have working class neighbors who earn more now as a result of tourism (and love it), i have a community government which HAS imposed some intelligent regulation and a city government that has been wise enough to leave it to the community governments. All in all a very positive experience on both sides of the wall. Before i were to get into a debate about Amsterdam I would want to know a lot more than i do (or possible could know). A quick aside since Venice was mentioned. When i first went to Venice in the early '80s it was pointed out to me that very, very, very few Venetians live in Venice because of the impact of all of the tourism. That predates Airbnb. Could Paris end up the same way (with or without Airbnb)? Its up to the Parisians to decide.

Do i understand the concern of those on the other side of the aisle? Absolutely.

When i relate one specific example i receive terms like "savior
complex" for instance.

James,
You should re-read what I wrote. You know very well this had more to do with your language and attitude than your position on Airbnb. Plus, I gave you a clear benefit of the doubt at the outset by admitting that you probably didn't intend to come off that way. I am not sure why you're bringing this up again after you acknowledged that you could have avoided calling some place a "dump", given the sensitivity that might provoke for those folks living there before you bought the place and rehabbed it. I made that comment because I believe some investors are unaware (or minimize) what a touchy subject it may be when they come in and claim to know what's best for the community (regardless of the merits of the condition of the building which are totally believable as described). Remember that we don't get to hear the locals' side of the argument, only yours - so it's acceptable to try to interpret your motivations by the language you used.

Agnes, you are correct. My apologies.

A little context on my situation. I didn't buy the first place for a business. It was for my use. A few years later I realized I could rent it too. And I never considered any of what is being discussed here, I've only recently looked at where the neighborhood has evolved and considered how and why. So it's never been a defence of my actions, more of a look back and consideration of the results. I'm acquainted with many of my neighbors (remember I live there often) and I go to House meetings or at least read the minutes and in this particular situation things are healthy in my estimation. I know a few others like me in town and the report the same; but I'm sure that isn't always the case.

Agnes, you have always been fair minded and respectful and I recognize and respect that. Thank you.

Thank you, James, that was very gracious of you. I really appreciate it.

As the OP, I'm tempted to delete my post (and thus this entire thread). It's been an interesting discussion, but I'm not sure there's any lasting value, and it feels like any new comments are merely rehashing stuff that's already been said.

Judging Airbnb based on personal anecdotal experience is like forming an opinion about whether climate change is real based on your local weather today. Who among us has never stayed in a hotel where the occupants of the next room kept us up half the night? Who among us has never eaten at a restaurant that came highly recommended and had a bad experience? These individual stories don't really give an accurate and complete picture. And we certainly don't make decisions about all hotels or all restaurants based on these negative experiences.

My intention in posting was simply to call attention to Rick's blog post on the topic. I said he was equivocating, and now I think I respect him for doing so. There's really nothing to be gained by having a highly respected travel professional form a strong opinion about something that has provided many travelers a great travel experience while having negative consequences for some local communities. Rick himself has been blamed for doing exactly the same thing!

My intention was never to spark a debate about the merits of Airbnb and similar services. I think we're all capable of thinking this through on our own and don't need to be told what our opinion ought to be. That's essentially where Rick came down, and I respect all of the thoughtful opinions expressed (and not expressed) in this thread.

I'll keep this post up for now.

Lane, dont take it down. Its not stirring up trouble, and is by any measure a cordial and civilized discussion. I, for one, don't have a fully formed opinion on the subject so the discussion has been enlightening and useful.

Lane,
This entire forum is based on personal anecdotal experience with some data sources/ articles/ research thrown in for good measure. And so it is with this discussion. You won't get an accurate and complete picture on any topic because this forum is not representative of the population in general (plus any thread attracts a very small sample size). As for Rick's write-up, I saw it as a brief marketing-speak that really doesn't (and probably shouldn't) get into the nuances of Airbnb and presents it in overly simplistic "either/or" type of assumptions which can easily be knocked ("temporary Europeans", "traditional Europe", "impersonal crank-'em out hotels" as if there weren't non-impersonal hotels or boutiques to choose from, blah blah blah). If you want to discuss Airbnb as a serious policy issue, Rick's little writeup is way too thin for that partly because it's tailored for the guidebook audience/tourist. Tourists are exactly 1 stakeholder in the whole discussion and seeing things exclusively from their perspective is too narrow, I believe. But alas this is a travel board, yet spillover issues about ethics (for lack of better words) still come into play no matter what. That's not a bad thing. Rick probably doesn't feel as passionate about this as say, marijuana legalization, which is why he's not exactly advocating one way or another. Plus he may want to wait to see how this shakes out over time without inflaming the tribal types of feelings that some people have right now. I think things will fall into a different equilibrium over time.

I'm all for what you want to do as far as leaving the thread up or taking it down. Another option could be to ask the Webmaster to close it from further comments.

I'll still be travelling to Europe. I see the argument irrelevant. Besides, where else could I spend the tourist expenses?

Airbnb posts always bring out the arguments on both sides - the same arguments and the same people (myself included).

Lane, two of the most heated, in appearance at least, have been Agnes and I; but I think she's great and I have to confess that she made me think about her point of view and my own experiences in retrospect. She's also been kind enough to warn when I need to be roped in a bit. Great arguments on both sides.

With all the concern over the plight of the working man and the impact of tourism, I would suggest that there is one thing each could do to mitigate the bad side of tourism; donate to charities in the countries that accept you into their lives. Even if it's as simple as giving all your otherwise worthless forints to a homeless person before you leave town. Often, but admittedly not always, I look for and visit a charity in the countries I am visiting. It's part of the planning process and gives me an opportunity to touch the culture at another level. $100 Will go a very long way in an orphanage in Bulgaria or a Synagogue in Hungary, or a military convalesence hospital in Ukraine. I often suggest this here, but it doesn't raise the same level of energy as does AirBnb.

@James E:

Just to be clear, my comment about the impacts that tourism in general has on residents was an attempt to understand why some people seem particularly vexed by the impacts that AirBnB (sometimes) has on locals, while being frequent travellers themselves and thus being part of the overall 'problem' that tourism brings to locals in other ways - crowding, traffic, queues for galleries and museums, noise, filling up the cafes and generally driving up prices. Of course there are also benefits to the local economy, but not everybody receives those benefits and some may only experience the many downsides.

So tourism affects locals in much the same way - arguably more so - as does AirBnB, which is simply one provider in a huge tourism market. I simply don't understand why some people are so bothered by AirBnB, even though they may have never used it nor been affected personally, and notwithstanding the fact that the same people negatively impact locals in other ways, every time they travel.

I simply don't understand why some people are so bothered by AirBnB, even though they may have never used it nor been affected personally, and notwithstanding the fact that the same people negatively impact locals in other ways, every time they travel.

Sometimes some people just need scapegoats to blame for all the ills they see regarding over-tourism in certain areas. Right now the chosen ones are AirBnB, Uber, and cruise passengers. Good or bad they serve some kind of need in the tourism industry. I personally don't demonize any of these but do agree with those that espouse the need for some kind of regulations. Currently we seem to be enmeshed in some problems (or situations) without obvious solutions. Time will likely work these out as it usually does.

steves_8;

You and I agree almost entirely in that the problem (if its even a problem) is way, way complicated. I just addressed you and then went off on a side tangent.

Nancy,

In the best of the objectors I sense a genuine well meaning to champion those less fortunate. I just think its by and large misguided and not well thought out or considered. In the worst of the objectors I sense some sort of ideological social mission.

22

28 or over 1/4 of the posts on this thread are from one poster. Sort of like Air B&B, taking over and crowding others out.

I thought we were supposed to limit our posts on a thread to a decent number?

Ms Jo, I seem to remember once upon a time that limiting your posts on a particular thread was one of the guidelines, but I guess they've been changed somewhat since then and that one was removed.

I don't use Airbnb but I do rent apartments through Homeaway and Booking.com and others. I very much prefer them to hotels, B&B's or hostels.

I do my best to see that the apartments I rent are legal. (Though if a city were really sreious about shutting down illegal rentals all they would need to do is moniter the listings). If license numbers can be posted, I only choose places with licenses. I try to be be a good quiet neighbor. Beyond that, I think the city, state, or country should be allowed make its own policy choices. And I don't think those choices are simple.

Everyone traveling must sleep somewhere, and most European hotels and hostels appear to be made from old palaces, mansions, and boarding houses. New hotels would necessarily replace existing housing.

Many places I've stayed in in older parts of town are owned by people who have broken up a larger apartment to rent out half or more. They want or need the income more than the space. Landlords are people with wants and needs just like everyone else. Everyone needs to make a living.

Rent control tends to produce housing shortages simply because it reduces the incentives to build more housing. Limiting the length of rentals is a kind of rent control.

Oh dear. Looks like some people, if they can't get the ball, will attack the player instead.

Why make this personal?

I think a reality check in economics is overdue here.

What is now called "gentrification" is the result of several primary factors.

One is the availability of lower cost (relative to the mean) of some sector of properties.

Two. The cost of capital. Ie. Mortgage interest rates. This must be affordable.

Three. Favorable market conditions. Ie a market for the property.

Now if all of these are present (and Airbnb is none of these) then people start to take advantage of the relative bargains available in what may have been dodgy areas and restore them to a semblance of a thriving community.

Keep in mind the average Airbnb is highly dependent on LOCATION to succeed and therefore is unlikely to be part of this initial wave of regeneration. That will come much later when the neighborhood becomes the new gay, hipster, artists enclave and an apartment will cost you 300 to 500k. Low income renters are not looking here to live. They were displaced by the original wave of regeneration. AirBnb' s come along much later.

Also for those of you championing the big hotel model over Airbnb keep this in mind. For every large hotel that was built in the 50's thru today the impact to property, neighborhoods, and especially lower income renters is a hundred fold more profound than that of all the Airbnb's in any given city. Yet I don't hear similar outrage over that.

Once again I find myself agreeing with James E, many of those opposed to Airbnb are not looking deeply enough at this issue and have landed on an all to easy target. And the wrong one to boot.

And for my money as a traveler and an owner of property I would much rather deal with the Airbnb model than have my town resemble the Costa Del Sol.
And while I agree this has been a great discussion I think it's instructive to note the number of comments that exhibit a completely closed mind to the concept or realty of AirBnb.

As for the number of posts by James E and Agnes on this thread they have been respectful and instructive, well thought out and well written. I fail to see a problem.

. Yet I don't hear similar outrage over that.

That’s because when a hotel (or any other business) wants to open they have to go through a planning process. This process gives members of the community input, provides a balance between the needs of business, tourism, and residents. Airbnb bypasses all this.
Zoning/planning should be done inside the community; not by venture capitalist in California.

MS. I think you are viewing this through an American perspective of the current time. That process you so rightly laud is not available everywhere nor has it been followed or respected even in our country especially up through the 1980's.

Also that process does not apply to most Airbnb's because the impact to the community as a whole is no where on the same scale as a 100 room hotel with its attendant traffic, delivery trucks, parking and tour bus traffic. Comparing the two is really an unfair and misleading comparison.

Also that process does not apply to most Airbnb's because the impact
to the community as a whole is no where on the same scale as a 100
room hotel with its attendant traffic, delivery trucks, parking and
tour bus traffic.

As most major cities around the world are clamping down on Airbnb; the locals in the community feel otherwise. Democracy is a wonderful thing.

Sorry to keep posting. But its an interesting subject to me and my experience that is contrary to the generalizations that get posted.

Zoning/planning should be done inside the community; not by venture
capitalist in California.

California? I am acquainted with about a dozen AirBnb's in my vacation city and i don't believe any of them are owned by California venture capitalists. When I purchased my place we were talking investment numbers between $50K and $150K, with at best a 4% return on the investment. Not the sort of scale that attracts venture capitalists. Most, if not all the owners i am acquainted with, are similar to me; middle income working stiffs that found a place they enjoy and diverted some of their retirement money to real estate holdings in order to facilitate visiting. I would imagine that's pretty much the norm. Why do we do it if its such a lousy investment? Of no interest to a venture capitalist is the cash value to the owners of these places. The cash value is the money saved on personal visits (don't have to pay for a hotel room for 30 days out of the year).

That’s because when a hotel (or any other business) wants to open they
have to go through a planning process. This process gives members of
the community input, provides a balance between the needs of business,
tourism, and residents. Airbnb bypasses all this.

Its a misconception that short term rentals are not subject to regulation or subject to citizen input.

(1) the Apartment House organization that can vote out short term rentals at any time. Often they charge higher Building Fees for businesses than they do for individuals. That higher fee subsidizes the other units making the apartment house more affordable for lower income working people. I get a vote in this process.

(2) Each of the 23 Districts has its own democratically elected government. In my vacation city many Districts have increased fees on the short term rentals. As I am not a citizen I get no vote in this.

(3) City Government which so far has apparently chosen to promote tourism; and tourism has been responsible for the revitalization of what was a dark, black stained infrastructure into something that is beginning to be more reminiscent of its former pre WWII self. As I am not a citizen I get no vote in this.

(4) National Government that represents the 5 million citizens of the country. The National government has dictated the business structure and a number of taxes for short term rentals; they have also established the definition for a short term rental (less than 90 days) so it can be treated differently as needed. As I am not a citizen I get no vote in this.

(5) Since the apartments in the old district are in such bad shape a total renovation is usually in order. That requires permits and permissions from the City, Gas Company and Electric Company. As a result the the renovations bring the apartments up to code and create substantially safer environments.

I would imagine that this is pretty much the norm in Europe as well.

@Michael Schneider: "As most major cities around the world are clamping down on Airbnb; ... "

A claim like that should be backed up with proof. Please provide a link.

steves_8; i think the term "clamping" is a bit biased. But like every new business concept its not unusual for governments to want to regulate them for one reason or another. So from that perspective he's right. But its not a automatically bad thing, nor is it always designed to end the activity. Actually a little structure can be a good thing for a business; and then there is always the need for government to reflect the will of the people. Also very good.

In my particular vacation city, one of the latest and craziest has been a requirement that the short term rental pay for a parking space in the district it occupies. We are talking thousands of dollars for a parking space that no one will use .......... oh, and which does not actually exist. Its just a form of taxation. Not my town, so who am i to complain. Other than Paris I am not aware of any city that has implemented a large scare effort to severely limit short term rentals, but i am sure a few others have.

A claim like that should be backed up with proof. Please provide a
link.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Crackdown+on+Airbnb

So your claim is nothing more than the impression you gained from reading online stories that confirm your bias, having typed into Google "crackdown on AirBnB' - a search request that is designed to find only what you wanted to see.

Your specific claim was that "most major cities" were clamping down. You have not provided evidence of that.

If I type "great things about AirBnB" into Google, guess what? I see page after page of great AirBnB stories ...

one of the latest and craziest has been a requirement that the short
term rental pay for a parking space in the district it occupies. We
are talking thousands of dollars for a parking space that no one will
use

Parking in dense European cities or historical districts is not free for anyone driving in. So given that it's a fixed-supply commodity and expensive, someone's gotta pay for it and that party should be whoever accrues benefit from the space. The two relevant issues are: 1) are short-term rentals treated equally under existing local laws, or is this some arbitrary "tax" as you suggest directed only at one property? Would a similar B & B be subject to the same requirement? and 2) the parking space would be a direct benefit to the short-term rental business by making it more attractive to potential tenants (not all obviously, but those who drive in). It's clear that the tenants and not the public (which would not be able to use that space, I presume, because it would be for the exclusive use of the short-term rental) would benefit from having that spot. It doesn't matter if it's used 10% of the time or 90% - it's still an amenity with value that you can't just put up and put away (although you can get into some sharing arrangement with other businesses if you can work out how to equitably share some space(s). So it makes no sense for the public to finance parking for the direct benefit of a business owner, they're supposed to provide their own parking per local regs and not offload that burden to the locality at large. Securing parking actually makes the short-term rental a better neighbor because others see that they're internalizing the cost of doing business and not letting it spill over and become the community's problem. That is frankly the biggest issue people have had with Airbnb in general. I know about paying for parking spots. I paid about 15k for the pleasure of having a garage space in my own building (those spots cost 30-50K in DC proper), and there is no free parking around where I live. I accepted that as the cost of having a car in a dense environment which is trying to accommodate pedestrians and other means of transport. Most people in my community are happy with that tradeoff.

Agnes, thank you. Something juicy to get into. But understand, I wasn’t complaining, I was laughing.

The two relevant issues are:

1) are short-term rentals treated equally under existing local laws,
or is this some arbitrary "tax" as you suggest directed only at one
property? Would a similar B & B be subject to the same requirement?

This is fee that is not imposed on long term rentals. Actually, anyone registered as living in the District is permitted to park free of charge in the District. That’s a good thing. Everyone else pays the meter. Also a good thing. Trouble is there are more cars than parking spaces. Good news, cars are not necessary in this particular city.

2) the parking space would be a direct benefit to the short-term
rental business by making it more attractive to potential tenants .........etc

I don’t own a car. The car, if I had one, has to be registered with the city, so my guests with cars (don’t think I have ever had one) aren’t going to benefit either.

I just found it humorous that I have to pay $2000 a year to park a non-existent car in a non-existent parking space. Sort of a typical cultural norm joke if you understood the city the way i do.

I am certain the money will to some degree provide improvements to my neighborhood and the concept that a business pays at a higher rate than an individual is pretty common and legitimate. Another humorous, but short lived, requirement was for each short-term rental to have a cash register connected to the main tax office. I understood why, but it just wasn’t practical, and the government corrected the issue quickly. The guys selling the HOHO Bus Tickets on the street corner were also required to have a cash register. Still we laughed for a while.

You have to understand I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now and the local businesses and my neighbors are my adopted community and my friends and I rarely have any issue with anything that improves the community or their lives. Even after all these years I still see myself as a guest in their community and my frame of mind is in accordance with that. I just threw this out in response to the overly general concept (by some, not you) that short-term rentals aren’t regulated. You would be amazed by the paperwork involved.

Is my city unique? Who knows. One would have to find “Barcelona James” to begin to understand the situation there.

You may read terms like "crack down" to describe the measures my city took. The term "crack down" or anything similar is a biased term to promote a belief that the regulations were in response to some illegal or unethical behavior. An open minded term, when one doesn't know the facts of each particular situation would be "regulate". Its the distinction between factual reporting and .... well .... For instance, Barcelona is often quoted as a place where the govenrment has cracked down. The crackdown was essentially the requirement for a business license. I am going to guess that to get that license certain standards should be met; I'm all for that. A reputation for high standards helps my business (and i have a "license") Well done Barcelona!

With all the concern over the impact of tourism, I would suggest that there is one thing each could do to mitigate the bad side of tourism; donate to charities in the countries that accept you into their lives. Even if it's as simple as giving all your otherwise worthless forints to a homeless person before you leave town. Often, but admittedly not always, I look for and visit a charity in the countries I am visiting. It's part of the planning process and gives me an opportunity to touch the culture at another level. $100 Will go a very long way in an orphanage in Bulgaria or a Synagogue in Hungary, or a military convalescence hospital in Ukraine. I often suggest this here, but it doesn't raise the same level of energy as does AirBnb.

You have not provided evidence of that.

I guess you don't have time to look through the list so I will summarize it for you:
According to respected/mainstream news outlets (not my bias)the following major cities are cracking down on AirBnb:
-Barcelona
-New York City
-Reykjavik
-Amsterdam
-Paris
-New Orleans
-Santa Monica
-Berlin
-Sydney
-Miami
-Vancouver
-Las Vegas
-London
-Montreal
-Madrid
-Dublin
-Berlin
-Hamburg
-Munich
-Tokyo
...and that's only up to page 10.

Michael, with 'research skills' like that, you could get a job as a climate scientist.

A wise man once said:

"Oh dear. Looks like some people, if they can't get the ball, will attack the player instead.
Why make this personal?"

Thank you Michael. Your thoughts are highly valued by me.

Thank you Michael. Sometimes my wisdom goes over people's heads :-)

The problem in Micheals posts as in many of the posts I read here by the critics of airbnb is the vast overgeneralization, the use of “headline” terms from the Internet, which are meant to generate CLICKS which equal CASH they are not meant to portray an accurate view. Thus citing those sources is in my view not reliable.

The term “Crackdown” was a headline grabber. The real gist of the article is many places are looking at regulations and rules and incorporating the Airbnb model into their existing zoning regulations....but that does mot make for exciting headlines or generate CLICKS.

And once again I find myself in agreement with James E. When you type in search terms the algorithims give you back results based on those terms. If you are tied to Facebook in your search and you may very well be without your knowledge (i.e. if you have used the facebook logo link in a site that data will also affect your search results.) So if you have been a critic of Airbnb on the web before, your results will reflect that.

I see no proof, either through my life long stint as a Business owner, a property owner, or with my real world experience with Airbnb that what is being claimed by the Airbnb critics actually exists on any meaningful scale whatsoever.

I have avoided posting this part of my argument for Airbnb for obvious reasons, it gives a bit too much information about me away which I don’t think is a good idea on the web generally.

But I will try to thread the needle here. My motivation for what follows is simply to refute as best I can some of what I consider to be false and misleading concepts of what happens with AirBnbs it is not meant in any way as self aggrandizement. But only as perspective so those who read it can understand how I come to this discussion.

I own property in a very historic neighborhood/city near Washington DC, The house was built in the 1760’s. It is on the register of historic places. I rent it out. (It is actually divided into two houses) I guess this automatically makes me, as one poster keeps referring to landlords as a “greedy Landlord”

There are several AirBnb’s on my street and in the neighborhood. One is across the street from my place. The houses in the neighborhood are valued in the mid 7 figures to more than 8 fugures.

Now I happen at the same time to offer what is for that neighborhood very reasonable rent on the basement apartment ( I rent it below the market value; $1500 which is CHEAP for that space in that area) in fact all my rents are below market value as I haven’t raised the rent in two years. But the presence of about 8 Airbnb’s in my neighborhood and on my street have had absolutely Zero effect on the rising value of my property or my rents.

Additionally not one time has a tenant of mine complained about the traffic in or out of the AirBnbs or the fact they are there. In fact I am not sure they even know of their existence.

Now this particular part of suburban. Wash DC is not an area that anyone in the lower income brackets are looking to rent in. Thus me or anyone else switching from long term rental to Airbnb has no effect whatsoever. So yea I do have experience on both sides of this issue (actually on all three given that I am a “greedy” Landlord.)

My real world experience in renting Airbnb’s on this 4 month journey of mine thru Europe has mirrored my experience at home. Most are in areas where the low income rental issue is just not in play. Second all of my research before hand indicated the same.

The places I have stayed in Rome, Florence, Naples were inhabited by people much like the woman I rent my basement apartment to...a Lawyer.

Now just before I left I bought a house on the Eastern shore of MD a small historic old house from the late 1700’s which needed work. In fact it was a bit of a blight on the neighborhood. I am spending considerable funds to bring it up to livable condition including raising the entire house for a new foundation, adding a bedroom and bathroom and another deck. I will more than likely Airbnb this house during the summertime. It is in a very historic old city that dates from 1669 and is a big summer destination. The town has many AirBnbs. They had NO effect on the cost of this house or its renovation. In fact the only effect they will have is I will have to compete with them in the rental price. I must get a permit from the city to do a short term rental and have more than 1 Million Dollars of Liability insurance.

What do my neighbors think? The man next door is ecstatic because his house has been for sale for quite some time and he blamed the condition of the house I bought for people shying away. The Lady next door is thrilled to have someone fix the fence....in short the neighborhood will benefit. I certainly will not get rich or even break even until I sell the house. I will however be VERY lucky to have the Airbnb rent make my payment for me.

I am not a corporation nor am I a venture capitalist and I doubt seriously the claims by some that Airbnb’s are owned in any significant numbers by such...the truth is the math just doesn’t work for that kind of investor.

Great that the big cities in Germany are among those on the list...Munich, Berlin, Hamburg. When I saw the headline a few years ago in a Berlin newspaper (forgot which one) that the Berlin Senate had outlawed Airbnb then, my reaction was "Fantastic"

I don't think it's fantastic when peoples choices are curtailed and thus forced to pay higher prices for what may often be lesser accommodations resulting in nothing more than a protectionist stance on behalf of the Hotel Industry.

That is neither good economics nor good government.

Fred, knowing you views on other subjects I have to say with all respect and kindness that you are an interesting mixed bag. But i have some semi-bad news. Apparently, to a limited degree, Airbnb is back in Berlin. https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/03/berlin-airbnb-vacation-rental-regulation-law/556397/ Those that have only skimmed my posts above might think I would have a problem with this, those that really read them will believe me when I say I am good with it.

aarthurperry, if i were a voting citizen of Berlin and was well informed as the implications of the decision I was making, I would probably have a solid opinion. But since its not my home, I am good with any democratic state exercising self determination. Its not about your choice or my choice, its about the choice of the people of Berlin. Im sure you respect that.

Interesting that 2 years ago they banned short term rentals out right, then this year the pulled back quite a bit. I guess they discovered that banning did more harm than good. Possibly in a few more years they will discover that they are still doing more harm than good and lighten up yet more. OR, maybe this is what works best for this particular situation. I have no idea.

My push back on the anti people has always been limited to 3 fronts.

1. I believe in self determination. If its hurting a location, they will respond like Berlin did. If they dont respond, then who am i to know better than the citizens of any location.

2. Over generalizations. You would think a forum that caters to the well traveled would know whats good for Berlin may not be good for Sofia. Still the generalizations continue.

3. Its big business taking over the world. Well AirBnb is truly Big Business; but without it tens of thousands of mom-and-pop businesses would suffer. Mom-and-pops that have greatly increased their living standards through short term rentals. Even above the mom-and-pops exist middle income guys like me that derive benefit from the market. Never have i become aware of large scale ownership and California Venture Capital, but i am sure some of that does happen. So when you battle short term rentals for the most part you are battling people of modest or moderate income.

Ironically enough; personally i have never paid for a short term rental. The concept doesn't particularly appeal to me. I'm spoiled, I like nice 4 an 5 star hotels. No interest in cooking my own meals or doing my own laundry on vacation.

@ James...thanks. I am aware even though I don't diligently follow the news in Berlin on Airbnb that this issue goes back and forth between banning it and relenting. At the moment Airbnb has it easier than when the Berlin Senate banned it, (I think that was in 2016 ?) but who knows in the future, it could go either way. I'll just wait for the decision (yes, it is fantastic) by the Berlin Senate to ban it again, if that decision should take place again.

This time I sort of had intended to bring this topic up with the proprietor of the Pension at which I always stay, well, ever since 2009. But, I forgot, so the topic was never mentioned. One thing is for sure, as the proprietor of the Pension, she is absolutely against payment by credit card.

In the end it is totally up to individual and his/her decision to use that option or not.

Fred, personally i have never paid for a short term rental. The concept doesn't particularly appeal to me. I'm spoiled. I like a nice hotel with great staff. Yes we disagree on that one too :-)

@ James....Well, I suppose I can say that I stayed at "short term rental" per se. That was in Warsaw in the summer of 2001 in the pre Airbnb days. It was an apt in Warsaw's old town for 4 nights. The Mrs handled all the details. How did I like staying there? No complaints, very nice, very satisfactory.

I am certainly not going to disagree with staying in a nice hotel with a good, attentive staff, be it in a 2 star or 4 star.

And I bet you stay in another short term rental some day. You know in the lesser traveled places where 2 star is all there is, I've met some wonderful staff and had incredible times. It's always about the people.

"...in another short term rental some day." If I am traveling solo, the answer is no. If I am traveling with the Mrs especially in France or Poland, I am hardly in a position to reject that option, am I? Warsaw was the only apt rental, whereas all the other cities we stayed at (Torun, Krakow, Gdansk) were in small hotels/Pension or a 3 star. True, it is almost always the personal contact.

James your summation of the anti Airbnb arguments and your pushback to them is precisely right.

I think it's interesting also that when confronted by cogent well thought out arguments such as yours the response from the anti folks is all too often to just not engage on the basis of those arguments. Which is unfortunate.

I think the single biggest misperception many of the anti Airbnb fold seem to have is that Airbnb is some gigantic corporation. And you so rightly point out that it is actually made up of just plain middle income individuals.

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when people would line up against a grass roots for profit endeavour like Airbnb and take the side of the huge hotel conglomerates even to the point of using the hotel lobby language. It certainly is a bright spot for the hotel CEO's in an otherwise bleak outlook where Airbnb is concerned.
Thanks for a great discussion.

aarthurperry, let's not kid ourselves, AirBnb is a massive corporation. They did $3.5 billion last year. But I'm not jealous of my neighbors good fortune. They did it by adding value to my business. My place only got listed with them a few years ago and by doing so my income went up, so it's a fair trade for me. It's a sad life when you worry about what your neighbors are earning. We all use Microsoft operating systems don't we? I think it great that someone can have an idea and make tons of money off it.

I don't understand the push back either. Little guys have benefited from the service and renters have gained some protection that otherwise they would not have. Add to that local regulation and it's a win all the way around.

Oh, I love the Uber concept too, for the same reason. But I take cabs just the same.

grass roots for profit endeavour like Airbnb

AirBnb is the complete opposite of grassroots. It has no less than 65 different investors. These investors include some of the largest international banking and venture capital firms in the world:
https://tinyurl.com/y9ywwf5l
In addition AirBnb has it's own internal hedge fund which generated 60 million dollars last year.
They are hardly an underdog in the Hotel Industry.

And just to re-focus a bit from the gushing praise slathered on the concept of nightly rentals, let's keep in mind the impacts, some quite negative, on other than owners and users of nightly rentals.

James (and others), what makes someone rent out an apartment as an Airbnb rather than a permanent rental? It seems there are Airbnb rentals that were formally long-term rentals but changed to short-term because they could make more money, no? And, there are increasing numbers of people buying apartments for the sole purpose of renting them out short-term. My impression is that the complaints stem from how the Airbnb model has transformed from locals making a little extra income, as you depict, to a rental business. Groups of people go in on apartments, skirt regulations, and then rent them as short-term rentals rather than long term, and the effect is that long term rentals are taken off the market, so prices go up for those remaining, and then communities become increasingly homogenous because only a select few can afford the ballooning prices. When I research rentals in the places I travel I see many many that do not look like someone's home (that they are renting out), and some even say as much ("my family owns several apartments that we rent as our business..."), and I have stayed in a couple - before realizing the pattern and recognizing the signs - and sure enough, the kitchens have nothing in them, the house is like a hotel room, and the owners have clearly figured out a way to buy apartments to make money from them. I can only imagine that short-term renting is more lucrative than long-term or else why do it (if you are not using the apartment part of the time). I now actively avoid these. I also see many many of these types offered by young people in their twenties, and I wonder about their ability to buy apartments in some of the most expensive cities in the world, if not to turn them into a business that is making them money.
This trend is changing the rental landscape of many important cities, and thereby changing local community character. Moreover, as this shift happens, the very "locals" who are voting for regulations - or not - are the owners of these business-model apartments. So we are talking about a cultural shift, which we see happening in many U.S. cities as well. In the end, money shapes regulations as true local interests are diluted. IF Airbnb were strictly regulated and the rentals were solely offered by people renting out the homes they live in to make a little extra income (as intended), I think the concern would be tempered. But looking at the Airbnb map of Amsterdam over the last 3 years, and the change in numbers of rentals and prices (!), I think the business model is ascendant for now, and personally, if my neighborhood was being flooded by short-term renters and my community was being eroded as a result, I would be resentful

Jessica; fair questions. I had a lot of the same thoughts and most of it is answered in my first two posts. It’s a good debate and while I think you have a lot of misconceptions I appreciate the fact that you have concern.

My push back on the anti people has always been limited to 3 fronts.

1. I believe in self-determination. If its hurting a location, they will respond.
2. I reject over generalizations as what I hear as world wide fact just doesn’t hold up in my experience.
3. Its big business taking over the world. I wish I were!

If you want more details than what I have answered you below then go to my first two posts. If you still don’t find my arguments convincing, then lets argue some more.

James (and others), what makes someone rent out an apartment as an
Airbnb rather than a permanent rental? It seems there are Airbnb
rentals that were formally long-term rentals but changed to short-term
because they could make more money, no?

In the country in which my vacation city is located the home ownership rare is 85%, so no, they probably weren’t long term rentals before they became short term rentals. And no, short term rentals do not necessarily make more money than long term. In my case I think I would net out about the same, but because I use my place for personal use too, long term doesn’t work for me. I am typical of about a dozen acquaintances in the same business in my city.

And, there are increasing numbers of people buying apartments for the
sole purpose of renting them out short-term.

My experience is a lot of folks found a way to afford a vacation home; and that the sole reason. The rental is just a means to an end.

My impression is that the complaints stem from how the Airbnb model
has transformed from locals making a little extra income, as you
depict, to a rental business. Groups of people go in on apartments,
skirt regulations, and then rent them as short-term rentals rather
than long term,

In my city, the return is so low, that unless you had a second reason (a means to own a vacation home) it makes no sense to invest in a lot of apartments. Too many other better investments; and again, everyone i know in the same business in my city is pretty much like me.

and the effect is that long term rentals are taken off the market,

In my city, most apartments 10 years ago were owned by pensioners and not long term rentals. Actually the home ownership rate across most of Europe is surprisingly high. Another aspect often not realized is that much of Europe has a declining population. My country leads the way in that issue. And, since most of these are in tourist zones, there are not as many locals that want to live in them. Over Touristed Cities is another issue.

so prices go up for those remaining, and then communities become
increasingly homogenous because only a select few can afford the
ballooning prices.

A building full of pensioners is homogenous. In my case the short-term rentals were one factor that improved the building and the neighborhood, and yes, increased the value of the properties. Now we have pensioners, short term renters, long term renters and higher income owners. Its no longer homogenous. Increasing home values helped to provide for better retirements for the pensioners. Oh, and there is no real property tax to speak of here so owning a more valuable property has no negative impact.

When I research rentals in the places I travel I see many many that do
not look like someone's home (that they are renting out), and some
even say as much ("my family owns several apartments that we rent as
our business..."), and I have stayed in a couple - before realizing
the pattern and recognizing the signs - and sure enough, the kitchens
have nothing in them, the house is like a hotel room, and the owners
have clearly figured out a way to buy apartments to make money from
them.

And that may be true in some locations. Remember I’m pushing back about generalities. But a “hotel looking” apartment is not a crime against society.

I can only imagine that short-term renting is more lucrative than
long-term or else why do it (if you are not using the apartment part
of the time). I now actively avoid these. I also see many many of
these types offered by young people in their twenties, and I wonder
about their ability to buy apartments in some of the most expensive
cities in the world, if not to turn them into a business that is
making them money.

“in some of the most expensive cities in the world” does not establish a norm.

This trend is changing the rental landscape of many important cities,
and thereby changing local community character.

The Amsterdam of 1950 is not the Amsterdam of 2019 nor will it be the Amsterdam of 2050. Society is a VERB. I don’t like what has happened in Paris over the last 30 years, but its not my city. I will leave it to the Parisians to shape the growth of their city and quit returning if I don’t like their choices.

Moreover, as this shift happens, the very "locals" who are voting for
regulations - or not - are the owners of these business-model
apartments.

So citizens of a society get to choose the direction their society takes? That’s a good thing I always thought. In my instance I am a guest and have to follow the will of the citizens. Im good with that.

So we are talking about a cultural shift, which we see happening in
many U.S. cities as well. In the end, money shapes regulations as true
local interests are diluted.

I guess I am a bit less cynical. Look at Berlin for instance where now to run a short term rental is very, very difficult and I would bet profitless. They took their future in their own hands despite all the big money.

IF Airbnb were strictly regulated and the rentals were solely offered
by people renting out the homes they live in to make a little extra
income (as intended),

Airbnb is regulated in many, many, many locations now; and as strictly as the citizens what them regulated. My place is regulated for instance. I’m not sure what Airbnb “intended” with their business model. But it seems to be working pretty good.

I think the concern would be tempered. But looking at the Airbnb map
of Amsterdam over the last 3 years, and the change in numbers of
rentals and prices (!), I think the business model is ascendant for
now, and personally, if my neighborhood was being flooded by
short-term renters and my community was being eroded as a result, I
would be resentful

And I would expect and encourage you to stand up and be heard and effect change.

To James E. Yes I suppose some think of Airbnb as a big corporation but to me they fall way below that by most measures including number of employees and income.

Microsoft 4th QUARTER 2017 income was 6.5 Billion. Boeing 1st QUARTER income of 2018 was about 2.5 Billion that puts the Yearly of airbnb in some perspective.

But regardless of their size and the issues that are generated I feel strongly that they are a big net plus on the corporate scene. They don’t pollute, They treat employees well. I have found them to do exactly what they promise and in fact even better it. (I am referring here to a couple of stays I had to cancel). They dont spam me with unwanted ads and notices. And their internet security is much much better than many.

In General:

As for the argument that was posted about groups of people going in together to invest in apartments to Airbnb. Again I have to doubt the veracity of these claims. If they are true it is a very very small percentage and for good reason. The economics just don’t work. There is not enough ROI in an Airbnb to support the investment of 5 people ( or much more than two).

Most Airbnb’s are seasonal. Even if they have a 100% occupancy rate for a 4 month season (highly unlikely) at $100 per night That is only $12000.00 Out of that comes all utilities, water, sewer, WiFi etc. etc. PLUS Cleaning and clean linens etc. Then there is the Mortgage payment. Any owner would be VERY VERY lucky to clear 40% or $4800 in a season. That’s $1200/month. That kind of ROI on a 250K-500k apartment is just NOT the kind of investment a group with any sense makes. I just dont buy it.

Even those lucky enough to have a year-round season the best they can expect is a 60% occupancy rate. Again if you do the numbers it is HIghly unlikely that any venture capitalists worthy of the name or group of people wanting to ACTUALLY make money would consider Airbnb.

Having one two or more as an individual does make sense to increase your income or to use as an addition to retirement income but that is pretty much the limit.

Again I find that the anti Airbnb folks are either ignoring the numbers or may not have the kind of business background to hold these claims up to a harsh light of inspection and see them for what they are....

Keep in mind my perspective is of one who grew up in a family business, been in business most of my life and has previously owned a hotel. So I do come to this argument with that experience and outlook or bias however you prefer to phrase it.

I have no doubt that many mean well in their criticism but their arguments just don’t hold water when exposed to the hard facts of the numbers in my view.

Im not anti Airbnb. I stay in them frequently. But I think they are getting away from their original mission, particularly in large cities (maybe solely), and so I avoid those that do this. I have research and plenty of reading to back up my opinion, as well as the experiences of many friends and family who live in cities where Airbnb had had a negative impact (San Francisco, Amsterdam, Paris, New York), and of course plenty of personal experience over years of staying in Airbnb's. The reason Paris is requiring registration and Berlin outlawed them altogether, albeit briefly, is because of the negative impact. One of the Paris regulations has to do with how many nights the place is rented out vs. being used by the owner, because they found that the owner was not staying in the apartment >180 nights (the 4 months of high-season use arthur mentions may be true in some places but not others). Im just not interested enough to pull up the articles to link here. I suspect the "generalizations" people have are based on reading the reports over the past couple of years combined with personal experience, and I think these generalizations have as much weight as one person's experience with their Airbnb rental. I think the Airbnb model is here to stay and agree that cities are working out the kinks. But I do think there is naivety in ignoring the criticisms as grousing.

aarthurperry

If you didn’t pick up on it, I own a couple of airbnbs in a fairly well tourist traveled European city.

The average apartment in an area where tourist would want to stay, and of the type a tourist would want to stay in, now sells for $150,000 at the low end. I live full time in a US tourist city; the price is comparable to a similar place here.

A good Airbnb in my European city might average 200 rental nights a year. The average rent is about $70, so that’s $14,000 gross. The management company takes a third to market, meet, greet, pay the bills, keep the records, make the government reports, arrange for upkeep, etc. So now the adjusted gross is $9,420. Utilities and Condo fees, taxes, repairs, upkeep, etc run about $6,000 a year. New number is $3,420 a year. I paid cash so there is no mortgage. So the question is, if one were to take the same $150,000 and put it in an index fund could one do better? Assuming a 20 year average 7% return in an index fund the same money would generate $10,500 per year. So on a cash flow basis one would loose about $7,080 a year with the Airbnb vs an Index Fund. When you figure in appreciation of the property you might just about break even both ways. A long term rental would probably gross about $6000 a year. With lower overhead costs one might clear about $4000 a year. So its essentially the same.

So why do it?

If one were to use it personally 30 days out of the year and if one were to assume if they did not stay in their own apartment that a hotel would cost $200 a night then the net benefit would be $6,000; and there are some additional tax benefits that might add up to about $2000 in value. No other scenario makes any sense.

Five guys would have to be nuts to get together on a deal like this. I am fortunate enough to have made the investment a decade ago when prices were cheaper, so my situation is a bit different. But people like me are now reaching that point because of the increased value of the property where we have to consider cashing out and looking for better returns. If that happens to any substantial degree, and I bet it does over then next few years, there will be a dip in values and some other market model will take over. It’s the natural flow of things….

That’s not to say Amsterdam and Berlin arent different. But the generalization of profiteering just doesn’t hold up. If it did I would be rich. Like most of my acquaintances in the business, we’re working stiffs that just found a way to have a lake house.

Jessica,

You have good points. Im sure you keep in mind that the news doesnt report anything positive, because that just doesnt sell and the news media these days tends to have an ideological bias too.

I am certain that there are places where the short term rental concept has done more harm thant good and from what i have read communities are responding to that; as they should. I will never argue what is good for Berlin or Amsterdam. I just dont know. I dont expect my situation is substantially different than the situation in countless other locations so I reject the generalizations. But i do that in all aspects of life. If its a subject of concern for you then it would be prudent to make as informed a decision as possible before renting. Im not really arguing with you on this and I am not trying to say my situation is typical. Im just throwing out food for thought.