
I Have Read Prop F, and It Is a Normal and Reasonable Piece of Legislation - bigethan
https://pleblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/i-have-read-prop-f-and-it-is-a-perfectly-normal-and-reasonable-piece-of-legislation/
======
jdp23
23 points in 49 minutes and it's buried at #44 in the middle of the second
page. Meanwhile a post with 21 points in 4 hours is at #12 on the first page

Great case study of how like Hacker News' "objective" voting system hides
posts with unpopular views.

------
remarkEon
-> Having 75 days to rent your home is a perfectly reasonable restriction.

Just out of curiosity, and because I can't find the answer, what is the number
75 based on? Is there something in the data about that number, wherein those
who rent out up to and including 75 days are the "reasonable" people just
renting out their place while they're gone on a long holiday? 75 just seems
sort of random and arbitrary, to me at least. Is that the threshold for when
people renting out their place become the "long-termers"?

Edit: Third party and not from Airbnb, but this place seems to aggregate some
data. Gonna go play now. [http://insideairbnb.com/get-the-
data.html](http://insideairbnb.com/get-the-data.html)

~~~
hermanmerman
What is your non-arbitrary take on that number then?

~~~
remarkEon
I mean, it's effectively 2.5 months. Without knowing more about some of the
laws governing rentals in SF it's tough to speculate. I was merely curious if
that number was informed by customer behavior.

~~~
jdp23
The current law is 90 days, so it's probably as simple as "the initiative's
authors wanted to shorten it a little but not too much".

------
venomsnake
While out of context, and I in no mean comment on the mertis of the piece.

>Response: There is nothing unusual about the word “assist” in the law. Laws
against assisting people in skirting rules and regulations are very common,
for instance, in copyright and patent law.

Using the two of the most hated laws in hacker community as positive example
is hardly a shortcut to make said community endorse the legislation.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I would like to think that anyone who identifies as a hacker would be smart
enough to realize that being opposed to current patent/copyright law does not
mean you should be opposed to every legal concept used or referenced in
patent/copyright law. That's like refusing to eat ketchup because you object
to McDonald's.

~~~
9mit3t2m9h9a
The concept of «assisting copyright infringement» is not popular among those
who identify as hacker. So in current context your argument is moot.

Of course, «correct representation of authorship under the authors' choice of
names and pseudonyms» is a concept used in copyright law with a better
reputation, in that case your argument would fully apply, of course.

------
bryced
Its like this site didn't exist until a few minutes ago when it was posted
here and on reddit.
([https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3n2lxn/i_have...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/3n2lxn/i_have_read_prop_f_and_it_is_a_perfectly_normal/)).

\- there are almost no search results for this blog on google \- there is no
way to identify the author - no linkedin - no twitter - no facebook \- there
is only one other blog post and it isn't linked to anywhere on the net - its
easy to backdate a post.

~~~
erdojo
The post now has a name, Zach Perez and from the bio, I'm guessing this is
him: [https://www.linkedin.com/pub/zach-
perez/b6/37b/a6a](https://www.linkedin.com/pub/zach-perez/b6/37b/a6a)

The person in the LI profile has no discernible ties to San Francisco. Since
his only other blog post is virtually the same thing, it's possible he's
acting as a consultant or shill for pro-Prop F team in some capacity. I take
his claims with a grain of salt.

Also the person who posted on Reddit has a unique profile of posting almost
entirely anti-development, anti-tech posts in his/her recent history.

It's doubtful they're the same person, but conceivable (even believable) this
is a concerted campaign disguised as organic conversation.

I think virtually any blog post authored by an unknown person with little real
social history is suspect in this campaign and should be ignored as
propaganda.

------
cheepin
Property owners already have the power to disallow short term rentals in their
units, and won't need this law.

We already know this is funded/supported by Hotels, which are no doubt
resenting lost income. The other beneficiaries are people who resent that what
their neighbors are doing is legal.

We don't need housing in the Bay Area to be more scarce, and reducing property
owner's rights in order to do it is even worse.

