
San Francisco just backed Airbnb into a corner - uptown
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/San-Francisco-just-backed-Airbnb-into-a-corner-7969571.php
======
aurizon
The real problem is nimby laws that limit new housing at high densities. This
is self serving because no home owners wants any new houses at all. They want
their house to go up in price.

At some time Silicon Valley risks becoming a Silicon desert

~~~
techtosser1
Wow. The SFBARFers/sf redditors are in the bag for AirBNB (you self identified
by using NIMBY indiscriminately)

This law should actually help your cause. Up to 75% of the local Airbnb
listings aren't in compliance. The additional housing will surely help, no?

In seriousness this is a good regulation that one wonders why it took so long
to make. All it does is require compliance with the existing law and helps
local enforcement

~~~
aurizon
I used nimby in the contest that new houses are not wanted in my area. I am in
Canada, and have lived here since 1948, so I am neutral to AIRbnb, but I feel
they should exist and not be run out of town this way. Laws need to change to
permit easy new home/apartment construction, or companies will simple leave
because they can not get any employees.

~~~
scurvy
AirBNB isn't being run out of town, nor does this have to do with real estate
development. This is enforcement of previously enacted legislation that AirBNB
has refused to enforce. In other words, it's adding teeth to existing laws.

This is a good thing.

~~~
aurizon
your economic bias shows...

~~~
scurvy
No, that's not the case at all. Laws without enforcement or strength are a
waste of time and the legal process. They should all have teeth, otherwise
it's just a waste.

This adds teeth to the previous law and makes it worthwhile. That's all.

