Short term rentals and rapid gentrification of cities?

most major cities have already been gentrified certainly in my home city of Edinburgh unless the tourist hoards want to come and live out in the suburbs.
A great deal of threads on forums these days seem to be about finding non touristy places to eat and drink but do tourist really want to head away to the outskirts of cities to find these places and in many case have menus and staff using local language.
Certainly I have left the majority of the pubs and restaurants of central Edinburgh to the tourists and folk that are happy to pay the silly prices charged in many of these places.

This is why many cities want to ban Air-b&b. All of those apts being rented to tourists are not available for residents and there is a huge apt. shortage in many cities. What is better for the city? People need places to live. Go to a hotel, that is what they are there for.

Personally I hope more cities start cracking down on the rentals. The glut of tourists is the quickest way to destroy the local flavor. Just look at the Costa del Sol - nothing Spain about it now. So many tourists move in, then local businesses change to suit the wants of the tourists, before you know it the place as it once was is gone...forever.

The OP refers to this article www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/06/the-airbnb-effect-amsterdam-fairbnb-property-prices-communities

tonfromleiden correctly cites the article I read. Short term rentals are dramatically impacting our little city with over 600 listed during high season. Younger families and those of more modest incomes are pushed to outlying housing, etc. and this trend seems to have much more life in it.

I'm with Ms Jo on this one, along with others. If a city isn't a living city, then one is not really traveling, one is a tourist in a dead zone. IMO. If Airbnb, etc. is all that is affordable, than maybe one should save a bit more money and travel another year. People need to consider the ramifications of their expenditures, again in IMO. Sometimes one just needs to pay a little more to protect one's way of life or others'... Clearly, this is not a popular position, but one to consider. Besides I don't understand cooking and cleaning on vacation...not happening with this girl.

Besides I don't understand cooking and cleaning on vacation...not happening with this girl.

Me too! Vacation is just that...vacation from everything! A picnic is the extent of my "cooking" on vacation.

I hate to be the only one on the other side of the fence but so be it. If I'm going to stay in a town for more that a few days I much prefer to rent an apartment than stay that many days in a hotel. I dislike hotels in general and especially the ones that I can afford. I want to be able to relax and read and eat meals on something other than a bed. I don't want to have to eat all my meals out, the cost just gets too high. I don't mind cleaning up after myself, to me that's better than some maid coming in to my space every day or so. It's just a case of different strokes for different folks.

I don't want to go back to 50 years ago when only the wealthy could afford to travel to Europe and stay in the best locations of town. I do believe that the competition from short term apt rentals helps to keep hotel rates down. Without those rentals the existing hotels can fill their rooms easier and we either have to pony up more $$ or, as is mentioned, get thee out of the city center and stay in the suburbs where hotels are more affordable.

With all that being said, I agree that there needs to be limits set and regulations in place that must be followed by the apartment owners. I do believe it can be controlled better than has been done so far.

"Go to a hotel, that is what they are there for."

" ..maybe one should save a bit more money and travel another year."

Well! It's hard to get around the value proposition that AirBnB and similar businesses offer. My wife and I recently attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, where we had an AirBnB unit (a clean well appointed studio guest house in a great neighborhood in Monterey) for $115 per night, plus nominal AirBnB service charge, which included two passes to the Monterey Bay Aquarium-$49 apiece to buy them. There was coffee, tea, sugar, honey, fresh fruit, chocolate and almonds (all organic) set out for our enjoyment. There were maps and guide books to use, and a friendly host in the main house where we got a great restaurant recommendation. All of this is fairly typical of our AirBnB experiences here in the states. Quite a value, though I was sorely tempted to rent a lousy hotel room for $200 per night ;-)

This is a market, and like all markets it will evolve and push and pull a bit. Obviously it's causing or has caused legitimate issues in cities in Europe-notably Paris, Berlin, Barcelona-and here in the U.S. as well, and cities are responding. Several local to me popular cities have banned vacation rentals; Santa Barbara and Santa Monica just to name a couple. Many people here have wished for a compromise instead of an all out ban, where a certain number could be made available, but I have not seen it happen. The fact that a new product or way of doing something causes some undesirable side effect is no reason to toss the whole concept.

Airbnb rentals are not in the best interest of locals needing housing. Iceland is an example of the impact on relatively small communities with limited housing stock.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/30/iceland-plans-airbnb-restrictions-amid-tourism-explosion

One report estimates a 124% increase in Airbnb rentals in one year,
with more than 100 flats available on the capital’s main street alone.
The result has been a dramatic increase in house prices in central
Reykjavík, and a paucity of long-term rentals.

If tourists are contributing to the gentrification of cities, not from me it isn't. In Germany and Austria no way am I going choose the airbnb option, totally out of the question. It's either a Pension or hotel, even a hostel. That's how you help the local economy. I was glad upon arriving in Berlin this past June to see in one of the local papers (Berliner Morgenpost ?) that airbnb was ruled against, outlawed .

As for the above view on cracking down airbnb , I say bring it on !

I have never and will never use airb&b. I don't think "gentrification" is the word for what is happening to European centers, although it applies to North American cities where beat-up central city properties are bought by yuppies (or whatever they are called now), and the restoration of these places revives a city zone. In Europe, these sections of the city are already thriving, private rentals of absentee-owner flats tear down the existing local community.

The alternative to expensive hotels? Well, less expensive hotels (there are lots of them), hostels, or, gee, bed and breakfast places that (absentee-owned or owner-on-premises) have gone through the legal processes for turning these properties into income-producing enterprises.

Off topic but while I am ranting, the same applies to Uber. I will continue to pay the medallion-bearing, professional taxi driver.

I'm with Nancy on this one too. We traveled to London & Paris (6 and 7 nights each) and rented lovely apartments. Then to Rome, Venice & Paris, where we rented apartments in Rome & Paris (again 6 and 7 nights each) and stayed in a hotel room in Venice since we were only there for 3 nights. I like to have more room than a typical hotel room allows and a nice balcony cannot be beat. We generally eat a small breakfast in then lunch and dinner out. Next year we are traveling to Ireland, Liverpool and Edinburgh. We will be in hotel rooms for the first 11 nights, then a nice little apartment near the Royal Mile for 4 nights. One benefit too is that you generally have a washer and dryer for your use, which really helps if you've been gone more than a week or so. I can't wait to go on our trip and I think the apartment stay will be one of the highlights for us. No we aren't 'locals' but for a few days (or weeks) its very nice to feel like you have a home to return to and not just a tiny hotel room with a bed and a couple of chairs to sit in, if you're lucky. To each his own, although I do see the need for regulation of the rentals too.

The crackdown on AirBnB and other rentals is coming in Nashville. There was a story on the news here recently about some residents in a downtown condo/town house complex being disturbed at all hours of the night by partying going on next door by AirBnB renters. The residents shot night camera footage of people coming and going from the AirBnB unit all night long, people throwing up on the front steps of the unit, and urinating in the parking lot. This was an upscale condo complex downtown; very expensive properties. The residents--and the mayor--were not amused. A lot of this is because Nashville has gotten a reputation as a "party town" for vacationers.

It's too bad some bad apples have to spoil things for the rest of us who are good renters when we do use AirBnB. There have been numerous complaints all over Nashville from residents in very expensive neighborhoods who suddenly notice that a house next door to them has a different set of people moving in every week.

Gentrification is happening in some of the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. But I do not know if AirBnB has anything to do with it. We were already experiencing a massive influx of people moving here after the popular TV series "Nashville" hit the air. Real estate prices here in the last 5 years have skyrocketed upwards. I am certain that having their properties for rent on AirBnB has helped real estate investors pay for their properties. How fair that is to the neighbors next door, I'm not so sure.

Some real estate listings here quote the monthly earnings potential from having it rented as an AirBnB or HomeAway as a big selling point in real estate ads in the newspaper and online. So, yes, the short term rental craze may indeed be pushing up property prices. And as more investors look around for more properties to snap up and turn into AirBnB rentals, yes, it could contribute to the gentrification of inner city neighborhoods close to the hot spots of downtown Nashville.

"The alternative to expensive hotels? Well, less expensive hotels (there are lots of them), hostels, or, gee, bed and breakfast places that (absentee-owned or owner-on-premises) have gone through the legal processes for turning these properties into income-producing enterprises."

The line between price and safety/perceived safety comes up fast when one is looking for a less expensive (or just plain inexpensive) hotel, in particular for solo and/or female travelers. Vacation rental businesses are exploiting a need, sensible and balanced controls are needed.

I have a family member who operates an AirBnB unit at her home in a gentrifying section of Los Angeles. There are very few hotels nearby, and the motels are undesirable to visitors. She has proper insurance coverage, is registered with the city and pays all Transient Occupancy Taxes, and declares all income on her taxes. It is a common misconception that AirBnB equals an illegal operation, it does not. She has literally hosted people from all over the world, and I can guarantee that their visit to the Los Angeles area was enriched because of their lodging choice.

I was on the fence about Airbnb until a couple months ago when my sister's friend N's landlord asked N and her husband to move when their lease ended because she wanted to turn the apartment into an Airbnb property. This happened in St. Louis, which is not a major tourist destination. I think most tourists come from around the Midwest.

The building is a duplex and the landlord had already turned the upper unit into an Airbnb for $75 per night. I assume she was getting enough business from that rental, to convince her that she would make at least as much by turning the ground-floor unit into an Airbnb as well.

N and her husband paid $500 per month in rent for that apartment and had lived there since 2005 because they couldn't find another apartment which was as affordable. I feel like tourists are given housing priority over residents because landlords can make more money in shorter periods of time from tourists. I know people have to make money but I don't think it'r right that they do it at the expense of residents.

I am definitely in agreement with Zoe on this. I'll never darken the door of an Airbnb rental or an Uber vehicle. The latter I feel very strongly about. A friend of mine loves Uber because the drivers are "so friendly and chat with you", which would be just another reason not go with Uber, in my opinion. I don't need or want my driver to chat with me. Shut up and just drive the darn car safely (and thank me for the tip).

I'm with Zoe and Norma on this one and will stick with those who have had to pay their licenses, fees, and pass certification.

However "beat-up central city properties are bought by yuppies (or whatever they are called now),"--it's not just yups, Zoe.

Yesterday when I went to our county courthouse (pop. 100,000) to pay property taxes, people from all over the country were there registering for our local sale of property with back taxes due. One guy had little rental properties all over the country. Then, there are real estate funds, domestic and international, investing in our towns and cities, cashing in on the rental market now that housing prices are on their way back up. So it's all in turmoil--and it's always the same people on the short end of the stick.

The AirBnB problem seems to be happening all over, including in Vancouver where short term rentals have just about eliminated rentals for people that live and work there. The city authorities finally had to take to take action and new regulations will be in effect shortly, including licensing of the properties for short term rental (along with licensing fees). In the last month or so, I've noticed a big increase in TV commercials in Vancouver promoting the positive aspects of AirBnB, and have to wonder if that's due to the impending licensing?

As some others have written here, I won't ever be using AirBnB or similar services as I find that small hotels or even hostels are a better fit for solo travellers. Also as someone wrote above, "Besides I don't understand cooking and cleaning on vacation...not happening with this girl." It's not happening with this guy either! I go on holidays to get away from that stuff!

I also won't ever be using Uber but don't get me started on that.

Thanks, Dave, I should have noted that not all airb&bs are illegal; it would take me far too much time to figure out which are legal.

I would hate to spend big money buying an apartment and then have a lot of other owners go for the fast buck, with strangers running all over the place.

I have not stayed at an AirBnB. My brother swears by them. I have stayed at privately owned condominium apartments/townhouses at vacation resorts. To my knowledge, these are zoned/licensed for short term stays. I have a shared ownership of a properly licensed rental unit at a ski resort and I know the tourism fees insurance and taxes paid by the operator are very expensive.

As a frugal traveler, I can see the attraction of using AirBnB, Uber etc. Anything to save a buck and have the added convenience, right? But there is always another side to this. Loss of affordable housing for local residents; nuisance for the neighbours; loss of tax for authorities; loss of revenue for "legitimate" hotel or cab operators, who pay fees and insurance to operate within the law.

Zoe, you are correct regarding knowing or not knowing what's legal and not, and it's a weakness in their system for sure. And yes, while we enjoy AirBnB, at least here in the states, I completely sympathize with people anywhere whose lives have been upended by a constant stream of tourists. Definite upsides and downsides here that intelligent regulation could improve.

It will be interesting to watch as Paris enforces the "no advertising unless registered with city" program, which was supposed to have begun in mid September this year.

I am in agreement with Zoe, Norma, and Bets. I prefer a hotel, B&B or hostel to an AirBnB apartment. As Bets said, they have had to pay their licenses, fees, and pass certification. I use the black cabs in London; those drivers who have passed "The Knowledge" test. No Uber for me in London.

All I can say is, if you could find me a nice hotel in a great location in the Marais neighborhood in Paris, where I could stay for a month for 50€/night, with cooking facilities so I could save money on food rather than eating out all meals, then by all means I would gladly stay there. That's what I paid as a monthly rate in a studio apartment. Yes, it was a 5th floor walkup with no elevator and no A/C but those are luxuries that I don't need and I don't want to pay for them. If my only option was to spend more per night on a hotel and oodles more $$ on eating out every meal, then I wouldn't have been able to spend that month in Paris right in the heart of the city and I would not have had the vacation of a lifetime.

What is the correlation between people renting out their rooms or homes and real estate values rising? Is there a great demand to buy these homes thus the greater demand to buy increases the value of the properties?

Generally speaking, for rental properties, an owner can generate more revenue from renting it out weekly (or monthly, or whatever short-term time period) to vacationers than in a longer term lease or rent to a local. This has not been lost on those who invest in property, so it has been reported in some areas that this has increased demand for properties. This, indeed, drives up property values as some people snap up any available property in areas that people travel to in order to turn them into a short-term rental.

M. Webster Definition of gentrification: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.

The biggest problem I have with the posts above is the broad overly generalized statements.

In one particular country 86% of the residential units are owned; not rented. As well over half the population of that country lives in one city then it’s fair to assume that the ownership rate in the city is fairly high as well.

25 years ago most of the inner city owners inherited their homes from the government; but were otherwise living well below any Western European standard. Conditions were deplorable and buildings were crumbling under their feet. Along came capitalist dogs. They began buying up these cheap apartments, renovating them and using them for higher value purposes.

Immediately property taxes skyrocket. WAIT, strike that. There were no property taxes. So what did happen? Well, as property values went up, the owners of those apartments sold their apartments and moved to the suburbs. Pure unacceptable GREED!!! The one I am most familiar with was a mere 600 square feet and sold for what was then 6 times the median per capita income and I am guessing 10 times the annual income of the owner. She was thrilled. Her, and many of neighbors chose to sell their tiny apartments and move their families to new digs, usually twice or three times the size, in the suburbs.

Then what? Well, building that had been failing in decay were now valuable enough to restore to their former position. Oddly, those that moved in after the restoration probably mirrored more closely the economic status of those the buildings were originally constructed to serve. Those people, who had some spare income, wanted restaurants and services and as a result more of the old derelict buildings were renovated to provide those services and people were employed to work in them. The owners and managers of the businesses filled the neighboring apartments….. etc.

The “tourist” zones of this city have a permanent population of about 250,000.00 and less than 1000 vacation rental properties (only about half that seriously pursued as a business and only 300 on AirBnb)

So who wants to tell the elderly lady that she can’t sell her apartment and retire in the suburbs because you have a higher "cultural" value for the property? Who is going to tell the city population that in 20 years they will lose the architectural heritage forever due to decay and a lack of revenues to repair and restore; because it’s so quaint today? Who’s going to tell the unemployed person that there will be no new jobs because poverty is more culturally significant? Finally, if six guys want to pool their money and fix up a building, for what ever reason, why is that a crime? Because it makes their neighbors house more valuable? Really? The world has come to that?

Is it the same in Paris or Amsterdam? I have no idea. As a rule I try and not make over generalizations about things I know nothing about. I can only speak to how finding higher values for real estate has benefitted the one city I know. I also don’t criticize their values and how they want to run their country. Most of these are democracies and if they want to change things they have the vote to do it.

Odd how this gets more coverage than many of the great atrocities taking place in the world right now. Country A can be invading or bombing country B and it’s no big thing, but let Country A allow AirBnb and, well, that’s a different story deserving of boycott.

Oh, and since we are voting. I generally don't care to stay in vacation rentals. I prefer really nice hotels. I make an exception in one city, but only because I know the place so well and its so inexpensive for me. BUT, I understand those that do like the places; its just a matter of what you enjoy and not right or wrong. I support all ethical and legal capitalists endeavors ...... even Uber, but you wouldn't catch me dead in one.

This is why many cities want to ban Air-b&b. All of those apts being
rented to tourists are not available for residents and there is a huge
apt. shortage in many cities. What is better for the city? People need
places to live. Go to a hotel, that is what they are there for.

Most (many?) of the hotels were built where apartments once stood. Should we tear down the hotels and rebuild the apartments? At least one or two rentals in an apartment block doesn't level the entire apartment block.....

Gentrification can have many causes, as the previous comments have said, although no one that I noticed mentioned that building new accommodations like hotels or hostels can be one of them.

The thing I don't like about hotels, B&Bs or hostels is that you have to live by their rigid time rules. Breakfast during a narrow window of opportunity which is often too early or late for us, room cleaning during a somewhat larger time frame, both requiring that the room be vacated.

We much prefer simple and comfortable apartments where we can live on our own schedule. For us, the 2 minutes it takes to make the bed is not a burden. We don't make a mess that requires daily cleaning and we are happy to pay for the cleaning at the end of our stay. We can eat when and what we want and the clean-up after is no big deal.

We've rented one Airbnb apartment. It had great reviews and the pictures of the place indicated the exact combination of comfort and simplicity that we like. When we got there, the place was dirty and cluttered with what we could only guess was old stuff the owners were storing there. There were obvious examples of deferred maintenance and things that didn't work at all. There's nothing so inviting as a dirty string mop and mop bucket sitting in the central hall. I'm sure others have had great experiences with this organization, but our first was bad enough to say never again!

We're not very picky and no place we have ever stayed has been 100% perfect. Regardless of the type of lodging, 80% is good enough for us. In terms of apartments, we're starting to move away from individual owners and more toward professionally managed places, even if the price is higher.

I've never tried Uber or any of its copycats. I never will. The cabbies who have jumped through all the necessary hoops to be able to do their jobs will always get my money.

I have been looking for a long-term (lease of 3 years, renewable) rental apartment in Paris for the last 7 months. I'm not picky about which arrondissement I live in, either.
All of the real estate agencies have told me that vacation rentals are responsible for "removing" 40% of the available inventory for long-term tenants.

This does not include continually empty apartments and unused office buildings, because these properties don't figure in the available real estate inventory.
The amount of money made by owners of vacation rentals far exceeds the new laws concerning how much one can charge per m2 and by arrondissement. The owners should have to answer for breaking these laws, and hopefully, they will. The vacation rental business is based on pure greed, nothing else.

I don't consider this "gentrification", because that involves wealthier residents who move in and change things to suit them. It has nothing to do with tourists.

Nancy, I would not begrudge anyone a month in Paris! But renting a place for a month is a different set of circumstances, I think.

What drives up prices is complicated, but scarcity is a factor. If there are lots of rental units in a coop, for example, there are fewer available units in the area for sale as homes.

I agree this is a problem. Hotels should take notice of people's changing preferences and start meeting the market demand by renovating or creating "hotels" that offer some of what air bnb type accommodations offer. That would be kitchens, more space, more privacy, and location in various neighborhoods. In many cities this can be found, and I stay in these apart-hotels when possible. However, in some places hotels are stuck in the traditional model, which is clearly proving to be inadequate to modern travelers. So airbnb type places spring up to meet the demand, with the consequences we are seeing. Hotels have an opportunity here.

I travel with children and European hotels are especially difficult with a family - quad rooms are near impossible to find in many places, there isn't enough room, and there is no fridge for snacks, formula, or in our case medicine. So...apartments, but I do prefer the apartment hotels when available.

location in various neighborhoods

If it were up to hotels (or any other business for that matter) they would build anywhere the can make money. But there are zoning rules they have to abide by. Carefully and thoughtful planning rules is what make cities livable. Firms like Airbnb completely put a monkey wrench in all that when they plop tourists wherever they want and don't have to follow the same rules licensed and regulated business do. Also, what about the long-term residents do they necessarily want a hotel in their neighborhood or a constant stream of strangers in and out of their building. I would rather have elected officials representing actual resident make zoning rules instead of a California based eCommerce firm that only cares about their investors.

chexbres; you and I have discussed the law breaking in Paris. Despite my opion that the government setting rental rates and dictating in such minute detail what a person may or may not do with their own ptoperty is ill advised; I respect the fact it's France and not the US and the laws of France should be respected by visitors.

Any solution that involves more hotel rooms must recognize that those new hotels will have to be built where apartments now stand.

Carefully and thoughtful planning rules is what make cities livable.
Firms like Airbnb completely put a monkey wrench in all that when they
plop tourists wherever they want and don't have to follow the same
rules licensed and regulated business do.

The city of Houston has no zoning (at least when I live there prior to 1980) and it's no worse than any other US City.

AirBnB owns no apartments and does no plopping. The apartments for the most part are owned by small entrepreneurs that own only that single apartment.

Most cities do regulate the rentals to one degree or another as do the condo organizations in the buildings. The problem seems to be weak enforcment of the rules and laws.

The "businesses" are regulated, sometimes licensed, and taxed as any other business would be.

AirBnB owns no apartments and does no plopping.

That's semantics. They the provide the tools and the ammunition. They are a defacto hotel chain.

I've been renting apartments for decades. Love 'em. I've always booked directly with owners via the local tourist office websites and information sources.

The anti-gentrification political forces didn't gain traction until Air BnB appeared, enhanced the market demand for apartments, and put a face on "evil."

I get the problems that come with an inordinate influx of tourists into apartments and neighborhoods. If municipalities want to ban mega-agencies like Air BnB, I get that. There'd be a lot less pressure on neighborhoods without the high-profile marketing of properties. But I don't get the outright banning of vacation apartment rentals by individual property owners - these have been part of the fabric of European neighborhoods for a long time.

Personally I hope more cities start cracking down on the rentals. The
glut of tourists is the quickest way to destroy the local flavor.

Wouldn't it make more sense to go back to a Visa system and just limit the number of Visas to a number that would preserve the quaint cities the way us tourists think they should be. Just think how great it would be if Prague was in the same condition and still looked as it did 25 years ago! The cost of the visa could be used to subsidise all the people who would become unemployed as a result.

There is a difference between apts or rooms that people rent out on a full time basis to vacationers and the Air B&B type of rental. There will always be the 1st type and they are fine. It is the 2nd type that is ruining the cities.

One cannot compare the compact cities of Europe with the spread out cities of the US.
European cities have little or no room to spread out but you can walk or ride a tram everywhere and US cities that are so spread out you can't walk anywhere and need a car for everything. Let Air B&B rent all they want in N. America.
People in Germany search for months and sometimes years for a vacant, affordable apt. It is like that in almost all of the cities. So yeah, we do begrudge 100's of vacant apts. in the city centers being rented to tourists.

"People in Germany search for months and sometimes years for a vacant, affordable apt. It is like that in almost all of the cities."

And this problem has existed for well over 40 years. Apartments were scarce and pricey in the early 70's too, back when international tourism was just taking off, back when tourism to Germany was significantly more sparse than now, and well before Berlin became the huge destination it is today.

Jo, do you happen to know what percentage of the total tourist overnights in Frankfurt (or the other large cities) involve vacation apartments? I'd be curious to know whether the elimination of vacation apartments would resolve or put a dent in the perpetual housing problems in Germany's cities.

Also, Jo, I don't understand the qualitative difference you see between corporation-level vacation rentals and Mom-and-Pop vacation rentals. Both take up space. Can you clarify why you see the smaller operations as destructive and the big ones as OK?

One of the great benefits of a typical B and B is that it gives the traveler the opportunity to interact a bit with a local resident(s). This is appreciated by some and not so much by others. A lot of those people that do not need or want so much contact often find a happy medium in an AirBnB/vacation rental situation. As I mentioned before, in my home town area, many people here have wished for a compromise instead of an all out ban. To be able to have a smaller number of vacation rentals (perhaps based on a small, very small, percentage of a given city's population) designated as vacation rentals would, I think, be a good middle ground for some cities as it respects the housing issue as well as allowing visitors and their dollars to come in, and also gives the local owner a money making opportunity. It's this last part, the money making opportunity, that just grabs some people wrong, as if it were plague or something. Money making opportunities make the world go round. Allowing a limited number to exist with a set maximum (if one goes out another could be officially permitted) seems like a partial solution to me.

And by the way, AirBnB and Uber are different companies with different products causing similar uproar, the endorsement of one entity does not constitute endorsement of the other.

"But renting a place for a month is a different set of circumstances, I think."

I'm afraid I fail to see the distinction here. Short term rentals are short term rentals, be they 4 days or 2-3 months.

"There is a difference between apts or rooms that people rent out on a full time basis to vacationers and the Air B&B type of rental. There will always be the 1st type and they are fine. It is the 2nd type that is ruining the cities."

Again, I fail to see the difference here, it must be very fine and maybe I need some more clarification. From what I can tell the Air B&B full apartment rentals are no different from any other full time vacation rentals, and Air B&B 'room only' rentals shouldn't affect those locals looking for full time apartment rentals. What am I missing.

It still seems to me that it's a matter of regulation by the local authorities, and that regulation needs to be applied fairly to all vacation/short term rentals in an area. I don't see 'outlawing' Air B&B specifically as the solution. If there is registration and fees required, then a lot of Air B&B type rentals will probably disappear on their own because it won't be worth the owners effort and the financial rewards won't be as great; prices for these rentals will rise accordingly and be in somewhat more equal competition with area hotels.

And, by the way just for the record, I've never used Air B&B myself but I have used VRBO, Homeaway and Booking.com to rent my apartments.

PS: I hope I'm not being too argumentative here.

It's hard for me not to see this from the perspective of the people living in the buildings where airbnb-type rentals are set up. I live about 1/2 mile from the Smithsonian and 1 miles from both the White House and the Capitol. About 2 years ago someone bought a condo in my building and started advertising overnight rentals on Craig's List. The condo stepped on it immediately. Like--I assume--most US condos, our regulations prohibit short-term rentals.

I can't imagine what the building would be like from the standpoint of noise if we had a bunch of overnight renters. The biggest noise issue I have when traveling is late in the evening when the partiers return to the hotel, some of them quite tipsy and oblivious to how much their loud voices disturb others.

The financial impact of removing apartments from the regular rental and re-sale markets is probably a larger issue. I often stop to look at real estate sale notices when I travel. Costs per square foot seem quite a bit higher in Europe when compared to US cities of comparable size.

As what is called a "single traveler" (Einzel-Reisender) in Germany, I know there is nothing I can do about gentrification and its adverse effects on cities, Airbnb in Germany, except that I won't participate in any of that. All I can do is to deny them my business, avoid apts, applaud every legal obstacle, monetary fine slapped on them, and set-back Airbnb encounters.

acraven, I look at those listings, too! Some people window-shop, I look at real estate listings in foreign countries.

By "a different set of circumstances", I meant someone staying someplace for a month (or longer) might be there for a specific purpose, that can be prohibitively expensive in a hotel. I am thinking of the research I do when I travel to Europe; a month is a good amount of time for me to get the resources I need. Someone may enroll in a language course or cooking school for a longer time period than the average vacationer. For a month or more, one tends to develop routines that are probably more in harmony with their neighbors' lives than a 3-night party-til-we-drop guest.

I agree with Zoe. If you're staying somewhere for a month or more, you're more like a house-swapper, a temporary resident.

I agree with both of the previous posters that staying for a month is just more sensible and convenient in an apartment than a hotel and it would always be my choice in that situation. But I still don't see how that affects the OP's issue any differently than staying just a few nights in an apartment. Whether it's one person renting for a month or 4 separate parties renting for a week each, it's still a short term rental and still affects the availability of long term rental units in the locality. The reason for the short term rental, be it vacation, attending classes, business needs, etc, does not change the fact that you're taking an apartment that, in some people's opinion, should belong to a long term 'local' renter. The only difference I could see would maybe be the annoyance factor for permanent residents in the same building if different renters were coming and going every few days. But that's not really the issue here, at least I don't think it is. Here we are talking about short term rentals by individual owners (Air B&B or others) taking available housing stock away from locals and cutting into well established local hotels/b&bs/hostels which, in some people's minds should be the only options for tourists. It's a difference of opinions, like all other social/political arguments and one that I don't think has a quick easy solution.

The biggest difference is there are far fewer people who stay for a month or more than who stay for 4, 5, 6 nights

What if I split the month stay with 3 friend; each of us for 1 week?

From 1945 until about 25 years ago this entire problem was solved in a lot of countries by having the government assign housing in a fair and unbiased way such that all were treated equal.

Existing apartments should be rent controlled in such a way that everyone could afford to live where ever they wanted. Large opulent apartments should be subdivided into smaller accommodations for the common good. There is absolutely no need for any family to occupy more than 600 sf. To own 1200 sf is to deny housing to another family and should not be tolerated. Again, this is a well proven system of equality used throughout parts of Europe for decades..

They could also construct high density, low cost tourist housing such as http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-communist-block-of-flats-2079617.jpg on the outskirts of the city thereby preserving the good stuff for the locals. They could also do Worthiness Screening and only permit the top 10% to enter the city.

There goes James-being droll again.

It occurs to me that any recent jump in housing shortages probably has less to do with tourists (whose numbers have fallen this season, I believe) than with the recent influx of immigrants - Two million newcomers in 2015 alone, a net gain of 1.14 million net when you account for the 860,00 who left Germany. The year prior saw a net gain of nearly 600,000.

http://www.dw.com/en/two-million-germany-records-largest-influx-of-immigrants-in-2015/a-19131436

So a lot of the anti-AirBnB and anti-tourist action may very well have to do with the government's approach to the Middle East crisis. Rather than safe zones there, Germany chose to invite newcomers to a country where housing was already quite tight.

And newcomers stay year-round; supposedly, refugees will stay only until the Middle East becomes livable again (I'm thinking that might take a while.) With around 3 persons per apartment, a city that needs, say, 300 apartments for 1,000 new immigrants would need only 11.6 apartments for 1,000 tourists doing a 2-week stay.

Droll, not at all. Well, maybe the last paragraph. Lest someone think you are trying to be insulting (I know you better)

Droll: curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement. "his
unique brand of droll self-mockery" synonyms: funny, humorous,
amusing, comic, comical, mirthful, hilarious;

I wish it were amusing. Personally the concepts discussed here scare the begeevers out of me.

It’s always worth the effort to revisit history; and this discussion sounds similar to discussions from the turn of the 20th century. The whole non-resident land owners profiting on the backs of ….. while denying them …… etc, etc…. followed by demands for cheap and plentiful for all of society.

The majority consensus in the post is that housing in the center of the cities should be available and affordable. If the current situation is the fault of Airbnb, I doubt you could undo the damage at this point. Unfortunately the buildings have already been renovated and the neighborhoods have already improved to the point that Gentrification is permanent; at least until the next naturally occurring capitalistic cycle takes place.

There was an article in Le Parisien yesterday, specifying exactly what people who rent AirBnB units must do regarding declaring and paying income taxes. Many rentals charge much more than the legal limit for the size of the apartment and the arrondissement where it is located, which was set by the government 2 years ago. Either people will have to start shoving cash under their mattresses, or start paying taxes.

According to the City of Paris, the majority of visitors renting vacation apartments stay only 2.5 days. People may be on very strict budgets, want to make coffee in the morning and want more space, but this is entirely unnecessary.

Paris is going "digital" very soon, and when it does, there is a dispositif to eliminate all internet advertising which does not have a legal registration number issued by the city to the property owner.

Agencies have not said what they will do when this begins.

I don't think the consensus here is that inner city housing should remain available and affordable to all. It seems that most think it should not be overly or falsely inflated due to the growth of vacation rentals.

"According to the City of Paris, the majority of visitors renting vacation apartments stay only 2.5 days."

Wow that's short.

"People may be on very strict budgets, want to make coffee in the morning and want more space, but this is entirely unnecessary."

Unnecessary for whom? The growing Asian tourist contingent has increased demand for rooms that accommodate not 2-3 people but large families. If Paris regulators want vacation apartments gone, perhaps they should mandate that hotels re-configure accommodations to serve those whose genuine need for kitchens and multiple bedrooms is now being met by short-term apartment rentals.

"People may be on very strict budgets..."
If vacation apartment owners are currently serving budget travelers, who will serve them once Paris makes them "residents-only"? Will regulators require a percentage of lower-priced rooms/apartments in all hotels?

Foreign visitors to Paris dropped by about 2.5% in 2014 and by 2% in 2015. I guess if they want this trend to continue, limiting or killing off vacation rentals would be a good start.

Sorry, I neglected to add that the City of Paris stated that those people staying an average of 2.5 nights were either one or two people - not families.

The rental rates are not really the question, here. It's the unavailability of apartments, due to the fact that property owners prefer to make much more money by renting by the day or week than by the year.

40% of the city-wide available rental property in Paris has been turned over to short-term rental property.

I hate to be the only one on the other side of the fence but so be it.

By now you know that you are not the only one, and add me to the list. Agreed with everyone's reasons, and here are a few of mine.

• As a solo traveler, I hate to pay for the hotels' rates based on double occupancy.

• Lodging for me is a place to have a good night's sleep (and some occasional meal preparation). I have no use for the amenities such as a pool, gym, etc., which are factored into the hotels' rates.

• In the less touristy areas ( such as tiny villages, national parks, etc.) with few hotel options, I can find places and get a sense of how the locals live.

• In cities where hotels charge for parking, or use public lots, I can rent a place with private onsite parking. Saving parking fees and more secure.

Brick and mortar businesses have to learn how to compete with their online counter parts to survive, so do hotels (and taxis) need to learn how to compete with airbnb (and uber). Applying political pressure to crack down on the competitions will not solve their problems.

As an NYC resident who lives in an apartment I have seen AirB&B what I suspect are AirB&B people in my building. It is against the lease and the owner risks eviction, but I guess the lure of extra $$$ is too much. And I do think it's a contributing factor to gentrification. Chelsea, the Village, etc are chock-a-block full of tourist and AirB&B. NYC is full of tourists, period, but it is very hard to find an affordable apartment in Manhattan. Working people--not just artist who also do work--are driven further and further out with longer and longer commutes. I live in Washington Heights and even here we see AirB&B. There was a article recently in DNA Information about some fool tourist who rented an AirB&B apartment in Inwood. He complained bitterly about the locals and the loud noise that they made. Hey buddy, that's the local culture that you AirB&B folks claim that you want. You rented an apartment in the heart of Dominican NYC and thought it would be quiet? LOL.

Lots of things are causing gentrification and destroying affordable housing in NYC and AirB&B is a contributing factor. BTW there is a difference between a 30-day rental and anything shorter particularly if you live in the building. You do know who the people are who live in your building. You might not know the name, but you recognize them. How would you like it if you had different strangers living next door to you every other day? I still think that this needs to be regulated, taxed and permits displayed. Just because you advertise on the Internet shouldn't give you a free pass.

Pam

Several topics going on here
1. What is appropriate or proper accommodation for a tourist
2. Housing regulation
3. Impact of short term rentals
4. Respecting the decisions made by the citizens of the host country.

I don't think the consensus here is that inner city housing should
remain available and affordable to all. It seems that most think it
should not be overly or falsely inflated due to the growth of vacation
rentals.

Christi, define "overly" and "falsely" See, I am an unapologetic capitalist and for me the value of something is set based upon what someone is willing to pay in a legal transaction.

IF, as Chexbres suggests, 40% of Paris is tied up with non-resident owners, and if the City passes legislation that makes that untenable, then the values of the apartments will go down, so will property taxes, so will infusion of cash into the neighborhoods and so will public services....... But maybe the trade off is well worth it. That's why France is a democratic nation so they can make those decisions for themselves. Its up to tourists to respect that. Every time apartment rentals in Paris have come up on this forum and Chexbres has commented that they are illegal she has been ignored. Too inconvenient, and besides no one ever gets caught......

Well James if you were sitting on the other side of the fence you might see it differently. I know you are intelligent enough to understand what I meant but sure - I'll explain.

If an apt is a vacation rental it will produce greater income than if it were a long term rental. So an apt that would normally rent for 1000 euros a month might rent for 1500 a month as a long term rental to offset the lost income from vacation rentals. That apt is overly valued and falsely valued due to the tourist industry - if the vacation rental income were not not an option the apt would still rent for $1000/month. This places a real hardship on the actual residents of a city and threatens to breakdown the very ambiance vacationers are there to enjoy. Capitalism is one one thing but when it serves to destroy the uniqueness of an area there has to be a line. Face it - tourists & capitalists are not always the most respectful of cultural treasures even if that treasure is the flavor of a neighborhood.

"I have seen AirB&B what I suspect are AirB&B people in my building."

And, pray tell, just what are "Air B&B" people? You make them sound like some kind of aliens or something. Certainly someone to be avoided at all costs.

Considering the poster I'm sure this was just a matter of odd wording with nothing bad meant, but really?

"Every time apartment rentals in Paris have come up on this forum and Chexbres has commented that they are illegal she has been ignored. Too inconvenient, and besides no one ever gets caught...... "

I'm sure some US travelers might take this attitude, just like they do at home when it comes to speed and traffic laws, drug laws...

"4. Respecting the decisions made by the citizens of the host country."

OK but how is one to know which decisions to honor, when host-country citizens aren't speaking in one clear voice? Even with the right attitude, foreign visitors can't be expected to be fluent in all host-country laws. And then there's the law-breaking host-country landlords, who are acting as though they're legit operators and doing nothing wrong. Lots of mixed signals here.

As a solo traveler I only pay for a single (EZ) be it at a 3-4 star hotel or a Pension.

Like Fred, I have never paid full price for a double room as a single guest.

A concern of mine is quality of life. Rampant illegal rentals don't support it, except for the owners' pocket.

James E - as one who has paid property tax in Paris for 10 years, I can assure you that it is based solely on the amount of space in m2 and the arrondissement you happen to live in. This is set by the government and doesn't vary more than a fraction of one percent in a given year.
Vacation rentals have no effect on property tax.
Vacation rentals have no effect on rental rates. The great majority of them charge much more than the rental ceiling adopted by the City two years ago.
If anything, doing away with vacation rentals will make long-term rentals more affordable for residents.

Russ, by "Respecting the decisions made by the citizens of the host country." I was referring to obeying the law. Sure, if you don't know the law that's one thing, but there has been enough talk in this and other forums where most should know to do a little research on apartments in Paris before renting. I happen to think the French are making a mistake, but heck, its their house, not mine.

Chexbres, the property tax was a wild guess, but I think its a fair bet to assume that increased property values and increased tourism has resulted in increased wealth and employment in the neighborhoods. I am not being critical, just a personal belief. But you confused me with:

Vacation rentals have no effect on rental rates. The great majority of them charge much more than the rental ceiling adopted by the City two years ago.
If anything, doing away with vacation rentals will make long-term rentals more affordable for residents.

Typo? How can it have no impact and still impact?

Christi, I understood your point of view perfectly. If it were my country I would place rights of ownership above ambiance for tourists. Who is going to define the proper ambiance and enforce it? Do you want today’s ambiance or that of 1979 or of 1960? Maybe we bring back Hemingway’s Paris? Life moves on with all its changes. I love the ambiance of rural Romania, so should i expect the government to outlaw indoor plumbing and cars (since the horse drawn wagons are so cute)?

I also have faith in free market economics to eventually find balance. If enough people don’t like the new ambiance, then they will quit coming and the property values will go back down because no one is doing the short term renting and things will return to as before. But my guess is people will always love Paris and it will just keep getting differently better each year.

Nancy, AirB&B People are short term visitors who have NOT signed a lease to be in my building. They have NOT had a background check completed on them. The super doesn't KNOW who they are. I thought I was being rather polite in referring them to AirB&B People. I can think of other names. Would AirB&B Customers be better? ????

Those of you who blithely talk about capitalism working forget that capitalism only works when it's regulated. There is no such thing as a pure market as anyone who has taken a basic principles of economics course can tell you. If AirB&B agrees to regulations as other business do that serve the public I'll reassess. But until them I am not happy to see it happening in my building. Right now we seem to treat Brick and Mortar business one way--regulation permits etc.--and anything web-based as not needing regulation. And yet they are serving the same purpose in a brick and mortar room.

PAm

Pamela

capitalism only works when it's regulated.

That's a true statement for the most part; but most regulation is overly reaching or just poorly conceived. So my tendency is to push back, for balance if nothing else. When ever a political entity is given power it will be utilized for political purposes first, the common good second. Again, and I keep asking; who will define "affordable" (affordable for who?) and "available" (just what does that mean). And if this is the goal, then what is so wrong about forcing owners to split large apartments into smaller apartments? If you are going to force the value, how they are used, etc. who decides where to draw the line? A politician? Americans, think of the politicians in the news right now. Which do you want making those decisions for you?

But there are options to government regulation. Deed restrictions and condo covenants for instance. I'm all for that.

Finally, AirBnb doesn't need regulation as much as those who utilize AirBnb to market their properties need the regulation (again Deed Restrictions and Covenants). The evil person isn't Airbnb, its your neighbor. If your condo association requires background checks prior to purchase (really? wow! who does your association turn away?) then I would suppose it to be consistent to require the same of sub-lets; making them nearly impossible for short term.

I stay in an Airbnb sort of place three times a year, 7 to 14 days each visit. Over the years the others in the building have been kind, pleasant, polite. Never a problem in what must add up to over a years worth of stays by now. Maybe its the exception, I don't know. But it has been my experience.

Good Discussion. Thanks

Pamela, I understood what you were trying to say. I just took offense at the term Air B&B people. Why not just say short term renters or vacation renters. Is there a difference if they are renting through Air B&B, VRBO, Craigslist, etc? Or were you actually saying that people who rent through Air B&B are somehow different or worse than others?
I guess I just don't understand the hatred some people have for Air B&B in particular.

I don't understand the animosity towards a pretty well designed service provider. Maybe there is a tendency to want to find easily identifiable focus points to pin all of the worlds evils on. "Big Business" for example.

And some just don't understand that AirBnb doesn't rent apartments. They aren't responsible for a lack of condo covenants and zoning ordnances or ...... They just provide a service that puts those wanting to rent an apartment in contact with those that have available apartments; while providing some payment processing services and buyer protection in the process. So in France at least; FIRST it is the individuals who own the apartments that are breaking the law. SECOND, you can have a discussion if AirBnb is aiding and abetting illegal activity. Of course AirBnb is just one of a half dozen or more agencies doing this and most apartments are listed with multiple agencies.

Maybe we should just call this "AirBnB-ism", just as the media is calling the new sharing economy "Uberization".

People forget that HomeAway started the "live like a local" movement in 2009.

The reason that AirBnB is villified is that the company's CEO insists on pushing boundaries and is an expert at getting media attention.

AirBnB just rode in on the coattails of HomeAway, though. HomeAway/VRBO and the smaller vacation rental platforms it bought up in 2009 were recently sold to Expedia.
It will probably be only a matter of time before AirBnB follows suit, since this company doesn't appear to be interested in paying fines and settling lawsuits.

James E - not a typo. Property values don't move much either way in Paris, but are based on the number of square meters, the age and style of the building and where it is located.

Returning a former vacation rental to the full-time residential inventory would mean the owner would have to adhere to the City's rental ceiling, and could not charge whatever he wanted.
In France, it is the owner - and by extension, the co-propriete - who decides what is acceptable in the building. If an owner disregards the rules regarding vacation rentals, he will be sued by the co-propriete, and the co-pro' will win.
The City's regulations are always secondary to the co-pro'.

I hope the citizens of Paris. The City of Paris, the Co Pros, the Rick Steves Forum and organization as a whole; and the next door neighbors of the illegal apartments all get serious in enforcing the rules and the laws. This lawlessness is giving the industry a bad reputation.

I rented a Paris apartment through Home Away two years ago. It was the last week of a three week trip and it was nice to not be in a hotel. Afterward I realize that I was tiptoeing in and out and felt like I had to leave it cleaner than I found it.... I have mixed feelings about the experience. With the current state of affairs there's no way I'd use them for Paris.
This thread has explained why cerbexes is so against tourist apartment rentals.
"Gentrification" is being used incorrectly in the article that spurred this conversation, by definition it is a positive thing.