Your argument is completely shallow and void of reason..
> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment
Why not? Whats your argument?
>What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel.
If I owned a building then I set the rules/laws. This is about property rights, not about what you think is right or wrong. If I want to turn my home into a transient hotel then I should have the right to do so. Existing residents should abide by my rules under the current terms of their lease.
>Imagine the scenario if an AirBnBer does this with say a cigarette?
And what if an existing resident did that? Whats your point?
You completely leave out any actual reasoning to support your statements. A very shallow argument.
>> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment
> Why not?
Because tanning hides requires strong acid and a bunch of other chemicals and it will stink up the building and probably break some kind of regulation for residential spaces. If you happen to be a tanner and you disagree with it, pretend he said "Nuclear reactor" or "shooting range".
He is talking about when you own an apartment, not the whole building.
And even when you own a building you still don't get to "set the rules/laws". There are tons of laws about what you can, and what you cannot do with and in your building. And in some areas, like e.g. Santa Fe IIRC, there can even be rules about what your building should look like.
Given those, starting your response with "your argument is completely shallow and void of reason.." is certainly ironic.
It was less an argument than a statement of fact. These are the laws.
If you want to argue what fundamental rights should or shouldn't be afforded to a property owner, HN probably isn't the place. This stuff has a long and complicated political history, which I humbly encourage you to learn more about.
Laws which are not set in stone. The point is that services like Airbnb can be the impetus for changing the law to make more sense for modern times. When these laws were created, something like Airbnb was impossible, so how can you think they took the concept into account when crafting them?
I think the tannery comment was a statement of fact: there are laws against using residential spaces for business purposes. If you own a building, you set the rules, but not the laws. Again, this is not a moral statement, but a recognition of how things work.
Owning a building and an apartment are different things. If you own an apartment or condo, you are bound by the home owner's association rules, which can be pretty limiting.
> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment
Why not? Whats your argument?
>What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel.
If I owned a building then I set the rules/laws. This is about property rights, not about what you think is right or wrong. If I want to turn my home into a transient hotel then I should have the right to do so. Existing residents should abide by my rules under the current terms of their lease.
>Imagine the scenario if an AirBnBer does this with say a cigarette?
And what if an existing resident did that? Whats your point?
You completely leave out any actual reasoning to support your statements. A very shallow argument.