A) I did say up front that I wondered what the other numbers are that Sam is not putting in the article -- the other half of the picture. I have, in fact, read "How to lie with statistics" and I am well aware we are being intentionally given a certain framing from a party with a vested interest.
B) However, I also lived in the bay area at one time, in Solano County, and was pursuing education with an eye towards going into some kind of urban planning related career. In fact, I founded and moderated a subforum for a time on the most successful urban planning forum around at that time. So I have some familiarity with how crazy prices were back then, before AirBnB was a gleam in anyone's eye. And also I have some familiarity with the various factors that go into forcing housing prices up. Saying AirBnB contributes to the problem is not crazy talk. But acting like they are the single most important factor meriting the passage of a bill intended to kill them off -- I want a tad more data than "But look at the crazy high local housing prices, man!" Because that falls far short of proving they are having that big of an effect.
C) Yeah, I am very familiar with the saying. I am well aware of how hard it is to be both profitable and ethical. So far, I have managed to be pretty ethical. I am also dirt poor. So I am a little tired of hearing that anyone making money is clearly The Devil. The fact that this is part of a pro AirBnB PR campaign does not ipso facto make it inherently evil. The other side is also engaging in a PR campaign, and they also have vested interest that you can put a dollar amount on. Sometimes, people are actually doing work they actually fucking believe in. Those people still need to EAT and put a roof over their head. I am so goddamn sick of the idea that all the good people are dead martyrs and, if you still draw breathe, you need to feel guilty about every single fucking thing you do to try to keep body and soul together.
Given your interest in urban planning, what are your thoughts on what could realistically cause housing prices to decline in the Bay Area? Particularly interested in the Peninsula.
The main thing I've kept my eye on is interest rates, but there are obviously other factors. I'm not convinced rising interest rates would even have that much impact--there will always be people with more money who want to live here for the weather/culture/food/location.
I haven't studied it (the specifics of what is going on in SF) well enough to make specific recommendations for San Francisco. If I were on a task force looking for answers, I would start by reading everything I could get my hands on concerning a) California real estate taxes and b) rent control. I would look for studies, I would look for what we can quantifiably show has a measurable impact.
Then I would look at trying to find ways to incentivize making small spaces with housing basics more available.
I would also look at economic factors like the fact that you can live in SF without a car, so some people can afford the nosebleed rental prices because they are paying only for rent rather than rent plus a car. And I would consider creating a PR program around that angle. Walkable communities typically are more expensive, because humans value the high quality of life they afford, and they are mostly zoned out of existence. A lot of things that historically created walkable communities cannot be recreated under modern car-centric zoning laws.
Edit: To be clear, those are things I would start with, not everything I would do.
Thanks for sharing. Since the Peninsula doesn't have rent control, but DOES have Prop 13, it has separate circumstances, but still many of the same symptoms.
I don't think anyone can with say that airbnb is the sole reason prices are up. That's crazy.
Moreover, I don't think anyone can actually prove or disprove something like that (there will always be a "but did you consider that?" argument to be made). Which makes sama's earlier comment asking for proof disingenuous.
Maybe it's hard to be ethical and profitable? idk. And, I don't mean to imply EVIL(!). You don't need to be evil to ignore a piece of info that might harm your livelihood: we are all equipped with brains that come standard with a range of cognitive biases we can subconsciously choose from :)
Look, the problem as I see it is that you can genuinely in your heart of hearts believe this is the Right answer and you can have come to that conclusion independently of making any money off it and the minute you make money, people will piss on the idea that you are suggesting something because you really and truly for realzy realz believe it is the right answer.
This is a thing I am very familiar with. I have a serious health problem. I have gotten myself dramatically healthier when doctors say it cannot be done. It precludes me having a normal job. I do freelance work online and I run a number of websites. I had a health site for years and it really did not make money and I was given absolute hell from all sides for having ads on it or a donate button or affiliate links. I was decried as the devil, endangering people's lives. blah blah blah blah blah and all kinds of other shit. The fact that I actually fucking have this serious condition and actually fucking got myself healthier with the things I was talking about made zero difference. I was (THEORETICALLY but not actually) "making money" for sharing the information, so, clearly, I was a snake oil salesman, trying to get rich off the suffering of other people.
The nanosecond you make a plug nickel off of anything, people will hang you high. I don't care how ethical you are. I don't care how much you really believe in it and have tested it yourself and are the real deal, people will riot in the streets about how the only possible reason you are saying that is to make a buck and not because you genuinely think it is true and thought it was true before there was any money involved.
So I am a tad burnt out on hearing how "If someone is making money on it, they are all liars and con artists and suffer cognitive bias and blah blah blah blah." Those accusations mean that NO ONE can promote anything unless they are martyrs who are getting absolutely nothing out of it at all ever under any circumstances.
I am well aware of cognitive bias and the mental models we don't even know we are operating under. I spent a lot of time in therapy and I still spend a lot of time examining myself and other people around me with an eye towards "actions speak louder than words" -- with an eye towards believing the patterns of behavior I see them engaging in, never mind what they are telling me. But I am the wrong person to have this argument with. I am so incredibly sick of hearing this from people.
Let's say Sam does what the founder of Habitat for Humanity did and gives away all his wealth and goes campaigning for housing solutions in San Francisco and at that point he concludes, based on years of study, that AirBnB is part of the solution and not part of the problem. At that point will you accept that he isn't just "suffering cognitive bias"? Is that what it takes for him to make an argument and not get accused of being specious?
I have news for you, I doubt it. I am HOMELESS. I still have to hear shit from people about being a snake oil salesman and a liar and a teller of tall tales and endless utter and complete shit.
So, sorry, you chose the wrong person to try to make this point to. I just am the wrong person to talk to about this.
Edit: For some reason, your follow up comment to me is dead, so I cannot reply to it directly.
You saying Sam is in a bubble of yes-men carries more weight with me than "Well, money!" But, in essence, attacking Sam and his reasons for saying what he is saying just pisses me off. Attack his argument -- come up with stats about how AirBnB is impacting the SF real estate market and argue whatever it is you think is the truth here. But please don't talk to me about the vested interest he has and how that causes cognitive bias. That is damn close to being a personal attack and it is basically an unfounded bullshit attack because both sides have vested interest or they wouldn't be arguing it. Duh. So what is the fucking point in pointing that out?
B) However, I also lived in the bay area at one time, in Solano County, and was pursuing education with an eye towards going into some kind of urban planning related career. In fact, I founded and moderated a subforum for a time on the most successful urban planning forum around at that time. So I have some familiarity with how crazy prices were back then, before AirBnB was a gleam in anyone's eye. And also I have some familiarity with the various factors that go into forcing housing prices up. Saying AirBnB contributes to the problem is not crazy talk. But acting like they are the single most important factor meriting the passage of a bill intended to kill them off -- I want a tad more data than "But look at the crazy high local housing prices, man!" Because that falls far short of proving they are having that big of an effect.
C) Yeah, I am very familiar with the saying. I am well aware of how hard it is to be both profitable and ethical. So far, I have managed to be pretty ethical. I am also dirt poor. So I am a little tired of hearing that anyone making money is clearly The Devil. The fact that this is part of a pro AirBnB PR campaign does not ipso facto make it inherently evil. The other side is also engaging in a PR campaign, and they also have vested interest that you can put a dollar amount on. Sometimes, people are actually doing work they actually fucking believe in. Those people still need to EAT and put a roof over their head. I am so goddamn sick of the idea that all the good people are dead martyrs and, if you still draw breathe, you need to feel guilty about every single fucking thing you do to try to keep body and soul together.