

SF plans 120-day annual short term rental caps - mahyarm
http://www.sfmayor.org/index.aspx?recordid=837&page=846

======
twblalock
Once again, instead of responsibly approaching the housing problem by passing
measures to incentivize building more supply, the SF government has taken the
easy way out by placing more restrictions on what can be done with existing
units. This is a convenient regulation for politicians because it appeases
certain people and attacks an easy scapegoat, but it will have a minimal
effect on the quality and quantity of housing available, and on the price of
rent.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Where do you propose "more supply" be built? Pretty much every inch of SF is
already occupied by something[0].

I suppose we could start landfilling part of the bay a la Boston.

[0]
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738299,-122.4049461,7687m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff)

~~~
Hobotron1
There's a third, woefully underutilized dimension I can think of.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Which would typically require demolition of existing structures. Most property
owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to
replace them with taller buildings. It would also require displacing current
residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is
constructed.

~~~
Hobotron1
> Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current
> structures just to replace them with taller buildings.

There are those that do who would gladly fork over a good chunk of change for
their lots.

> It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere
> else to live while the new building is constructed.

Yeah, lets inconvenience 99% of people just so those few won't be.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Who exactly is being inconvenienced? Those who do not currently live in the
city?

~~~
Hobotron1
Current tenants- paying insane prices for rent

And yes, those that would like to live in the city but can't because of the
ridiculous rent or simply lack of rent-able places.

~~~
rdl
And the people who would like their pensions to be fully funded due to
investment gains from new tech companies in SF, currently hindered by rent.
And people who want to use exciting new products built by SF companies which
are limited or don't happen due to lack of office space. It's a drag on not
only the city but the state, nation, and world.

~~~
ndnichols
Are you being sarcastic? Or do you genuinely think the lack of office space in
SF is a drag on the world?

~~~
tdaltonc
Not office space so much as housing.

"But for the tight limits on construction in California’s Bay Area, they
reckon, employment there would be about five times larger than it is. In work
that has yet to be published they tot up similar distortions across the whole
economy from 1964 on and find that American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5%
lower than it otherwise could have been. At current levels of output that is a
cost of more than $2 trillion a year, or nearly $10,000 per person."

[http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-
centre-...](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-pre-
industrial-economy-has-returned-constraint-
growth?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2)

------
gergles
This is actually much worse than it could be, because of this:

> • Treating all short-term rental hosts equally by striking the current
> difference in the law between “hosted” and “un-hosted” short-term rentals.

Hosted rentals SHOULD have lesser regulation and restrictions. Nobody's going
to turn your spare bedroom into a meth lab with you in the apartment. Most of
the negative externalities of these types of rentals come when people are able
to provide 'unhosted' rentals.

~~~
jawns
I think you're quite right that unhosted rentals are more problematic. Every
short-term rental horror story I've heard has involved unhosted rentals.

However, from an enforcement standpoint, I can see how difficult it could
potentially be to have to make distinctions in each and every case. If a host
is there to let you in the door and then leaves, is that a "hosted" rental?
Does the host need to be in the apartment 100% of the time you're there to
count as a "hosted" rental? What if he steps out for an hour? Does the host
need to employ some sort of time tracking system as evidence of his presence?
What if a host and a guest dispute the amount of time the host is present?

------
slykat
I think it'd be more productive if the city was more focused on improving
regulation to build more housing in the city for actual residents rather than
trying to stem the loss of units to permanent Airbnb'ing. It seems like every
policy maker and lobbying group seems to be ignoring the biggest elephant in
the room which is this city needs dramatically MORE HOUSING than it is
building (and the infrastructure that goes along with it).

Build more housing please.

~~~
mmanfrin
I can count off the top of my head at least 8 different housing
projects/towers being built. It's going up, and the city is doing everything
it can (whist being actively undermined by NIMBY groups).

Also addressing the rampant issue of people taking up rental units with quasi-
illegal short term rentals is perfectly fine.

~~~
pdx6
By the numbers, SF simply isn't building fast enough, nor has it over the last
20 years.

    
    
      Units built in 2014: 3,514 
      Jobs created in 2014: 23400
      Permitted units (at any stage): 3756
      Submitted units for review (not permitted): 8000
    
    

Source: [http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/04/housing-
productio...](http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/04/housing-production-
in-san-francisco-highest-in-over-20-years-but.html)

Further, many of the buildings are squat, short, and low density, even near
transit. SF suffers from 20 years of planning failure.

Read the last 10 Socketsite articles to get an idea how criminally mismanaged
SF's planning is. The AirBNB regulations are to make the city's power brokers
look like they can do something about growth other than build.

~~~
thedufer
For comparison: Manhattan issued permits for 4,856 new housing units in 2013
[1], despite having half the land area of SF and already supporting 4 times
the population density.

[1]
[http://www.nycrgb.org/downloads/research/pdf_reports/14HSR.p...](http://www.nycrgb.org/downloads/research/pdf_reports/14HSR.pdf)

------
hardcandy
If enforced properly this should force investor owned units out of the short
term rental market which should help lower annual rental prices somewhat. Big
IF.

------
djyaz1200
The party is over.

------
bskinny129
"amendments to streamline" oxymoron?

~~~
oxryly1
Amendments can remove stuff. These amendments seem to just add things though,
so... yes, oxymoron.

