YVR Cockroach

The one country which has done something to reduce the impact of tourism while still bringing in revenue is Bhutan where tourist have to spend a pretty high per diem. Rationing or sale to the highest bidder in a nutshell. Maybe Venice will have to/should do the same. Maybe make admission based on verifiable hotel bookings which should serve the purpose of killing Airbnb at the same time.

rickg523

Thanks for translating this really interesting article. It covered a number of problems brought on by the popularity of Italy as a tourist destination. The sad irony is the very features that led to Italy's becoming the world's top travel destination are the ones most in peril from very people who come to experience it. And it's a fact of life that as the number of visitors increases, the percentage of self-absorbed visitors increases.
About rental properties, the numbers are too high. There should be some form of zoning limitation, x number of short term rentals allowed for every 5x properties per block or something. There are obvious property rights issues to be dealt with. And laws like this are incredibly difficult to craft where they don't invite officious abuse of enforcement. New York City is trying something but property law in the US may force them to modify what is essentially a total ban on rentals of less than 30 days.
Short term rentals shouldn't increase neighborhood density. So there should be occupancy regulation. I have seen Airbnb listings for two bedroom apartments claiming room for 8 people. This is an abuse, invites the kind of tenants no one wants as neighbors and those listings should be stripped. Cities should have access to listing services like Airbnb to report abused.
Taxes should be levied and collected. I must say every property I have rented (through any service) has collected tax, itemized on a seperate line on the receipt. I have noticed in Italy, this is often collected on site at the key exchange and in cash. I think that's an invitation to pocket the cash and there should be registration and audit requirements. I'm surprised there aren't since the tax is calculated and usually has two components.
A natural benefit of implementing and enforcing reasonable regulations is it will organically reduce the number of people interested in renting short term. This along with zoning limitations ought to restrict the supply sufficiently to price out at least some of the troublesome sorts of tourists. Ugh, that sounds terribly elitist. But really less party animals on a bender weekend in the sun can't be a bad thing.

PWMTrav

I really don't like when cities pin things on Airbnb. Airbnb addresses a market inefficiency for short term rentals. If I don't want to stay in a hotel and I want to easily book an apartment, would anyone expect that I take the harder route? At least for me, it's not something I do because I want to stay somewhere cheaper than a hotel - it's because I want a small home, not a room, and don't need or want hotel services/amenities.

Find a way to make sure short term rentals pay their share of taxes, limit the inventory somewhat and move on. I do agree with that part. But protection of the hotel industry shouldn't be an objective of the permit/tax scheme. Even limiting the number of short term rentals to preserve the community is fine with me, but that never seems to be the actual objective when Airbnb regs come up - much like Uber regs in the name of safety that actually only seek to protect an entrenched taxi industry.

mkjr

sorry, but this is the propaganda line of the sharing economy.

protecting hotels and taxis is a fallacious argument. hotels and taxis would LOVE to operate without regulation. all they want is to play by the same rules....

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...k-cocaine.html

any person doing any level of research into why there are regulations for the taxi industry will know it is because of many of the issues that are encountered with uber and why there is regulations governing hotels are because of the issues that come up with airbnb.

and the same rules are those that are to protect people...from the article "“that it is safe, that it complies to all zoning, fire and building code requirements, that insurance and mortgage providers agree to the sublet.” is this not unreasonable? airbnb thinks so...

but to the topic raised, as a visitor to venice, i would support restrictions.

i know from experience that when my parents cruised, they rarely spent any money when they got off the boat other than a snack or two or a beer or two at a pub. why would you buy food when you have unlimited food on the boat.

that said, on a recent trip to kyoto i was baffled at the people there too...and with this post, i will know that i will visit these packed places when the sun comes up first thing in the am only....

Perche

I agree. It's about more than protecting hotels and taxis. It's about maintaining the character of neighborhoods. This law just passed where I live when in the USA. http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20...tps://static01.

And as in Venice and Florence, evictions are happening in San Francisco to convert apartments to an AirBng, a city notoriously short of avoidable housing.
Below, protesters in San Francisco demonstrating over evictions caused by landlords converting buildings to Airbnb units, resulting in people becoming homeless. Regulations should be in place. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/te...lped-pass.html

rickg523

Long ago, before Airbnb, before the Internet and peer-to-peer transactions, landlords were mass evicting tenants in Santa Monica California and turning their apartment houses into condos. Technically, they gave the tenants paying $200 a month rent a chance to purchase their apartment for a few hundred thousand dollars or get the hell out by next month. The people of Santa Monica found widows and pensioners thrown on the street by landlord greed repulsive and eventually passed the most restrictive rent control laws in the nation. Right wing types labelled the city the People's Republic of Santa Monica (still meant things to the 1970's people). And a 30 year guerilla war between property owners and tenants ensued. It only ended when landlords just stopped listing vacant properties until the buildings were empty. Then they converted to condos.
I bring this up to agree with PWMTrav that pinning this on Airbnb while ignoring the actual Venetians (or the owners of Venetian properties wherever they might live) is shortsighted. If a real estate conglomerate bought up these properties and converted them to condos for sale to the highest bidder - it's Venice the most beautiful city in the world - not only would the evictions be worse, unlike p2p rentals, condo conversion is permanent. They never turn back into apartments. Ever. You know what they turn into? Timeshares. Rented for short term vacation stays when not occupied by the owners on vacation. How is this different than Airbnb to residents of Venice? Well, as I say, unlike Airbnbs, the fundamental category of residence has been altered. An Airbnb can be returned to long term rentals, in fact can co-exist with a long term rental. Condos will never return to the rental market, except as short tem rentals.
That's why I find NYC's draconian solution untenable.
The lesson of Santa Monica is once property owners see a path to increased profit , they're going there no matter how long it takes. Economic theory extends that to every one of us and relies on this very dynamic as fundamental to all economic activity. We all want the most profit we can get. People on the whole have a conscience and don't want to mess other people's lives up on purpose, but though you can bank on a certain amount of altruism, but you can't put altruism in the bank.
Cities can delay things but short of eliminating the rights of property owners to use their dwellings as they see fit - truly moving to a state-run society on a micro level - cities can't stop this. If I own an apartment and see my neighbor making more money by renting short term rather than long, what an I going to do?
What cities can do is set up regulatory gates that help insure that the very character that makes their city what it is doesn't get buried by inevitable economic activity.
Not easy. And as Santa Monica proves, simple emotional response is counterproductive. Today, don't even think about renting a place in Santa Monica without a 6 figure income. Ironically, Santa Monica, with its extremely high per capita income, because of its lovely climate and location, is also known as "the home of the homeless."

PWMTrav

All good points. The protection of the neighborhood is window dressing. I wish that were the real objective because I agree with it. But it's never about protecting the neighborhood - not when entrenched interests have the money to be vocal.

If it was about protecting the neighborhood, then why is nobody speaking up when a neighborhood gentrifies? Because its residents are too poor to have a voice? Yet when an economically desirable place starts to change, somehow the neighborhood needs protection. You could substantiate that if Venice started emptying out of permanent residents when Airbnb came about, but the residents were leaving in droves long before that. The same could be said for Florence, and probably countless other places.

I'm fine with actually maintaining the neighborhood. I'm also fine with basic safety regulations - conform to the applicable housing codes and such. Tax them the same as hotels, even, that's fine too. But don't overreach and eliminate things like Airbnb.

rickg523

These were exactly my points in earlier posts. That I wanted to purchase an already empty property in Venice and was told that among other reasons that would be difficult (it didn't happen) was the (then new) idea of fitting these dwellings out for short term rental. According to Perche's posts, this has become prevalent in Venice. The map he provided bears this out.
What should bother us all, and what needs regulation, is that apparently landlords evicted tenants instead of renovating vacant properties for the rental market. IF they had upgraded the housing stock, what would have been the objection, beyond the Luddite rejection of a new thing and a bunch of hand wringing about what MIGHT happen.
But it's quicker and cheaper to just take a currently rentable property to Airbnb. Economics predict that will happen first, absent societal controls.
And this is why the short term rental market needs zoning controls to limit the phenomenon of entire neighborhoods being only occupied by tourists on 14 day stays. There's no social "glue" in that scenario. Nothing good or interesting can come of neighborhoods becoming multi-structure hotels. Let me ask, does that sound like a place you want spend thousands to visit? And occupancy controls need be enforced to control turning apartments into tenements. I cited an Airbnb listing of a 2 BR apartment for up to 8 people. Let me ask, if you live in that building would that kind of abusive rental be something you'd welcome? Stop and think just exactly who would rent such a place. Renters coming to enjoy the culture of a place...or 8 dudes out for a bender?
These two controls would in fact go a long way to preserving neighborhood integrity.

Perche

Nobody said they should be eliminated, just regulated. Those problems are not happening where I spend half of my year, in Marin County. Notice, that picture I posted was from 2014. Noting how detrimental it was to the community. San Francisco subsequently banned short term rentals for less than 30 days, but was then sued by AirBnb, and it was put on hold. SF County pointed out that AirBnb listed 9,448 apartments, of whom only 1,281 registered with the City Office of Short Term Rentals. In other words, no taxes paid, no regulations. As in Venice and Florida, it is off-the-books. There are even studies published and law suits filed about people with hispanic or african-american sounding names being significantly less likely to be accepted by AirBnb renters. It is hard to see how regulating apartments so that they don't have 14 beds in a two bedroom apartment, pay taxes, follow codes, obey racial discrimination laws, violates property rights.

All that the hoteliers in Venice are asking for is a chance to compete. After all, they pay for taxes, permits, and have to follow rules. With venetian locals, cruise ships and AirBnb's are just not something viewed favorably.

rickg523

(I'm on my phone and cut and pasting particular quotes is a pain, so I'm reverting to the old way. Pardon me for aesthetic degradation)
"San Francisco subsequently banned short term rentals for less than 30 days, but was then sued by AirBnb, and it was put on hold."

This kind of ham handed response can't work. I can't rent my place on Airbnb while I leave town for 3 weeks? Can I list it in the Chronicle? Craigslist? Tack a 3x5 card up on the bulletin board at the student union?
I get it that lawmakers, especially under pressure from moneyed interests, aren't the most nuanced thinkers, but they have to do better than that. To be clear, I'm not saying there is not legitimate opposition to STR (can we use that abbreviation?) beyond those whose profits are being challenged. But lawmakers generally only give those folks lip service, not hastily drawn up draconian regulations that won't stand up in court.

"It is hard to see how regulating apartments so that they don't have 14 beds in a two bedroom apartment, pay taxes, follow codes, obey racial discrimination laws, violates property rights."

They won't. Outright bans do.
Enforcement should be quite straightforward if lawmakers can enlist the services like Airbnb instead of deciding they want to get into a street fight with them as a sop to their campaign contributors. All that needs to be done is to coordinate listings with regulators. In the end, a business like Airbnb would gladly self-regulate and refuse listings that violate reasonable, clear regulation. Well, human nature being what it is, they would if politicians don't spend the next few years trying to paint them as enemies of everything good and worthy in our society. You can only take so much when your kid asks "Daddy, how come the man on the radio says you're evil and trying to destroy our city?"

"All that the hoteliers in Venice are asking for is a chance to compete. After all, they pay for taxes, permits, and have to follow rules. With venetian locals, cruise ships and AirBnb's are just not something viewed favorably."

If SRTs in Venice did pay tax, get permits and follow rules, would that improve their image among Venetians? In fact, would even restoration and rehabitation meet with Venetian approval?
I ask these questions honestly. The discussion here has been rational and, read all together, there's hardly any disagreement.
But in Venice, how much of opposition to SRT is driven by resentment of bad behavior by landlords? Is unjust eviction ever forgivable? Can a family thrown out on the street by a guy they've paid monthly for years so he can let it out to a series of backpackers be expected to have rational responses to SRT.
How much is a basic distrust that change can ever be for the better?
Do you think Venice will be able find a way to solve the problem?
And don't you think the cruise ships are much more corrosive to Venice's livability than the length of time a tenant resides in an apartment (as opposed to a hotel room), even though that too presents problems that if not addressed will erode what Venice is?

Perche

Actually, it's not politicians and moneyed interests pushing AirBnb around. It's the opposite. AirBnd is a tech company valued at $30 billion. That's more than Hilton and Hyatt is worth, combined. They are the ones making massive contributions to politicians, based on where they stand on STR's. They even have their own Super Pac.

Politicians are just trying to reign them in because they really are contributing to a lack of affordable housing. AirBnb sues any city that tries to put in place any reasonable restriction, and they have the massive funds and lobbying resources to do so.

One such case in point in San Francisco. A couple with a young child suddenly finds the apartment next door vacant. Then, the lock is change from a key, to a keypad. Then, it's always noisy in there, with strangers coming and going. It's become more difficult to park. She no longer knows the many people she sees coming and going up and down the stairs. One day, the door of the apartment next door is open. She peeks in, and it's almost wall to wall beds, being rented to squatters for $35 per night. Being uncomfortable with this for their young family, they move out....and yet another AirBnb is created.

It's not just Venice where it's hard to buy an apartment. It's hard anywhere in italy. And, it's expensive. Even Johnny Depp's place in Venice, now sold, was fairly small. Even Elton John could only afford to buy a place on the Giudecca, and it's no palace. I'm not aware of any landlord who has purchased and reconstructed a home to convert it to an AirBnb. Apartments morph into AirBnb's by forcing people out, or natural moves.

It is true that Venice's population started decreasing before AirBnb, but most of Italy has a problem. Last year it had 514,000 births, 6007,000 deaths. It has one of the oldest populations in the world, and a declining birth rate. It has 150 people over the age of 65 for every 100 young people.

What I believe San Francisco was trying to do is pass a law saying that of course you can rent out your place. But, you must live there two months out of the year, so that it is actually your residence, not an illegally operated hotel. You also can't have multiple listings in the same city, because means you are making your living by running multiple unlicensed hotels. After all, how many different places can you live at the same time? Just some common sense things.

What New York wanted to do is something common too. There are some laws that say that if you host a website (AirBnb), you cannot be legally responsible for what users do on it. New York wants to fine AirBnb users who make illegal listings. That's certainly allowable. There are all sorts of "decency" laws making it illegal to post certain things on the internet. AirBnb is suing New York, saying that would violate free speech. New York's position is you can't have it both ways. You either police your website on your own, or New York will protect its citizens on its own.

The crackdown on AirBnb is underway, it's now forbidden in Berlin, probably about to be closed down in Amsterdam and Barcelona. It really does reduce affordable housing. For me, the downside is that neighborhoods in Venice are going away. The neighborhood shops that exist for residents are being converted more and more into trinket shops. If someone likes an apartment style of living rather than a hotel, there are all sorts of legitimate bed and breakfasts.

Actually, making cruise ships dock somewhere else like Lido or Marghera, is again just back under discussion. They are also still just thinking of dredging a new shipping channel so that cruise ships have go to the maritime station on the western tip of Venice through a different route, and leaving by that same route, keeping them out of the Bay. This is the compromise to keep the cruise ship money coming in, while supposedly reducing the damage they cause.

It's important to know that the damage is not from cruise ship waves. The motorboats do the wave damage because drivers don't obey the speed limit. Cruise ship weaken the foundations of the city in a subtle way. Let's say you have a 95,000 ton, 1/4 mile long cruise ship. It is displacing 95,000 tons of water where it is at the moment. When it has moved 1/4 mile forward, water has to rush in to replace the space the ship was just occupying. This creates a massive suction effect. Granules of sand and other material in the pores of the underlying foundation get sucked out. They can never get put back in. So massive amounts of underlying loose material gets sucked out of the foundation every time a massive cruise ship goes by.

Cruise ships, AirBnb, not Venetian's favorites, either one of them

rickg523

I think we all agree the abuses must stop. I'm surprised Airbnb digs in so hard to defend them. In the end, it will hurt them. The requirement to actually reside in the place your renting for short terms is sensible and among the kind if common sense regulation needed. If you don't live there at all, it's a commercial property used as a business asset and needs to be treated that way. But even the example you cited, wall to wall mattresses, should have violated occupancy codes and been shut down and the owner fined. Claiming a place you don't live in as a residence to avoid commercial assessments, is, or should be, a violation, again subject to citation and fine.
In cities with significant housing shortages, STR has to be a zero sum proposition. If you are removing housing stock by reserving it for STR, it's a no go. If you're using Airbnb as it was originally intended, renting your place out while you are out of town, the city should have no say in those transactions..as long as any occupancy requirements are met. I don't believe *these* types of transactions should be subject to tax collection. I shouldn't have to collect sales tax anymore than I should if I have an occasional yard sale. If I'm having a yard sale every week, I'm running a business and all the pertinent requirements should apply. Same thing for STRs.
Venice, like Santa Monica in the 20th century presents a different problem. Property owners exploiting their rights to use their property as they wish to their benefit but the detriment of the city they may not even live in. In both cases it isn't a housing shortage issue, it's gentrification issue. Its not more or less people, it's different people. People who have paid to take away your home. And people who took their money and helped them do that. Venice ought to maybe ban evictions for anything other than lease violations and make trying to convert a tenant-occupied property a bureaucratic nightmare. Italian bureaucrats are expert at that of they want to be. Make it onerous enough and make it significantly easier to rehab abandoned properties for STR usage, with something like the density limitations I proposed earlier (no more than 20% of habitable properties in a block).
But tbh, I think daily limits on cruise ship disemarkations would have far more positive effect on the kind of crowding that's driving everyone around the bend than any restriction of STRs. Get those mobs under control and Venice can deal with the problems of an unregulated STR market without conflating those with insane crowding in the S.Marco/Rialto area.

Perche

Agreed

TheTakeOffRush

I know that AirBnB has lobbied in Hawaii to be able to pay taxes and participate in "good neighbor" regulation. I like to see that maturation of this niche in the industry. And I'd certainly applaud a Bhutan style approach to limiting access to the city.

PWMTrav

I agree on all of the above points regarding regulation.

I'm not yet sold on Airbnb as a major contributor to housing shortages, though. Not across the board, anyway. Take San Francisco, since that's already been mentioned. The city itself is notoriously difficult to work with on new housing projects. They essentially don't build housing, the stock won't increase and yet people keep moving there. Demand is up, and that basically means you need a tech salary to afford to live there. Airbnb has ~8600 listings in SF, but the population churns at about 60k each year (population isn't rising, as net movement is zero). That 60k coming in who displace the 60k going out are educated and well paid, pricing out the 60k that are leaving. Yet housing stock doesn't rise at any appreciable number, even as tech jobs grow as a proportion of the overall labor market there. Airbnb is a convenient scapegoat, but where's the city council approving new housing? We care about the former because it impacts gentrified neighborhoods, but we don't care about the latter because it's just a bunch of poor people being displaced. Airbnb could disappear tomorrow and in markets like SF, there'd not be a significant enough impact on rent to house the people that had to move out.

I do buy the argument that too many short term rentals impact the character of a neighborhood - and support regulation around that as well. They just impact the character of a gentrified neighborhood, so we hear about it. Nobody complained when money came in and changed the character of poor and blue collar neighborhoods.