• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Right to Rent? Cities barring property owners from renting out

ludin said:
I have no problem with people doing what they will with their own property.
you don't buy their home or pay their mortgage therefore you have no say in what they do with it nor should you.
if they are being that noisy then call the cops like normal.

they will be told to keep it down or be fined.

This is one reason I avoid HOA's and I refuse to live in one.
if I had to live in one I would run for the board to ensure stupidity didn't reign supreme.



tell that to the taxi drivers they see it very differently.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. Their monopoly (especially in places like NYC) is jeopardized. I use Uber every so often. It costs a little more than a cab but it's well worth the extra few bucks to save not having to stand in the rain or freezing on a street corner trying to get a cab.
 
ludin said:
I have no problem with people doing what they will with their own property.
Click to expand...
That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that what someone does with their property often affects their neighbors or communities.

It should be screamingly obvious that if I'm throwing parties every Friday night, it's going to impact my neighbors. And if the landlord doesn't care, and it's a different group every Friday night, then how does calling the cops help?


you don't buy their home or pay their mortgage therefore you have no say in what they do with it nor should you.
Click to expand...
They also didn't buy my house, and they don't pay my mortgage. Thus, within reason, my neighbor should not be empowered to take actions that negatively harm my property values.


if they are being that noisy then call the cops like normal.

they will be told to keep it down or be fined.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like you've never lived in a rowdy university neighborhood. Or had to deal with a noisy neighbor. Try it some time, and then tell us all how easy it is... ;)


tell that to the taxi drivers they see it very differently.
Click to expand...
<< shakes head >>

Taxis are reacting to new competition, which threatens their income; Uber and the like are also violating regulations in many cities, leading to charges of unfair competition.

In contrast, homeowners who object to rentals are not competing against anything or anyone. They are focused on quality of life.
 
Visbek said:
That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that what someone does with their property often affects their neighbors or communities.

It should be screamingly obvious that if I'm throwing parties every Friday night, it's going to impact my neighbors. And if the landlord doesn't care, and it's a different group every Friday night, then how does calling the cops help?
Click to expand...

Then they will be told to keep the noise down or they will be fined for noise violation.
if it is a party then the cops will break it up like they normally would.


They also didn't buy my house, and they don't pay my mortgage. Thus, within reason, my neighbor should not be empowered to take actions that negatively harm my property values.
Click to expand...

they aren't telling you what you can do with your property so irrelevant.

Sounds to me like you've never lived in a rowdy university neighborhood. Or had to deal with a noisy neighbor. Try it some time, and then tell us all how easy it is... ;)
Click to expand...

assumptions usually make you wrong. I had a semi-noisy neighbor.
it was pretty simple to ask them to keep it down and they did.
the cops will tell them to keep it down or they will fine people or
if they really don't comply arrest them.

<< shakes head >>
Taxis are reacting to new competition, which threatens their income; Uber and the like are also violating regulations in many cities, leading to charges of unfair competition.
In contrast, homeowners who object to rentals are not competing against anything or anyone. They are focused on quality of life.
Click to expand...

shake your head all you want.
people rent homes all the time.

this is a fact of life.

I know plenty of people that rent houses or have rented a home.
 
ludin said:
Then they will be told to keep the noise down or they will be fined for noise violation.
if it is a party then the cops will break it up like they normally would.
Click to expand...
...and if that worked, then no one would feel any need to pass additional zoning restrictions.


they aren't telling you what you can do with your property so irrelevant.
Click to expand...
What they are doing with their property does affect their neighbors, so it is relevant. That's why we have zoning laws.


shake your head all you want.
people rent homes all the time.
this is a fact of life.
I know plenty of people that rent houses or have rented a home.
Click to expand...
<< shakes head >>

Congratulations on showing a total failure to understand the difference between these two situations.
 
You should be able to rent your property anytime you choose.
However, you also must rent responsibly. I think we already have regulations in place that govern that.
No, you should not be able to rent to someone who turns the rental into a rat infested garbage dump (thus not only creating a health hazard but bringing down the value of homes surrounding the rental).

How many renters you have, how much rent you charge, those kinds of things are your own business.
 
Gaius46 said:
A better alternative might be to simply enforce the reasonable zoning that already exists....
Click to expand...
If that worked, additional zoning restrictions would not be necessary.


....the main driver of those regulations is really to make sure that there's enough property tax revenue to cover population based services (public schools as an example).
Click to expand...
Property taxes are not the issue. The owner of the property has to pay the same property tax, regardless of whether it is owner-occupied or rented.


One thing that caught my eye in the article is that some parents are simply buying homes for their kids near school.... Would you enact zoning regs not allowing parents to buy places for their kids to live in?
Click to expand...
Given how few parents are willing and able to do this, and how unlikely they are to all do it in a concentrated manner, I seriously doubt that poses any sort of real issue.
 
Visbek said:
If that worked, additional zoning restrictions would not be necessary.



Property taxes are not the issue. The owner of the property has to pay the same property tax, regardless of whether it is owner-occupied or rented.



Given how few parents are willing and able to do this, and how unlikely they are to all do it in a concentrated manner, I seriously doubt that poses any sort of real issue.
Click to expand...

Yes the owner does have to pay the same property taxes. But those property taxes are based presumably on an average family size. If someone illegally converts a one family into a two family that's twice as many people - on average - as was accounted for by the property taxes being paid by the property. Potentially twice as many kids using the public schools, twice as many people using the library, twice as many cars etc etc. That and safety considerations are the prime drivers behind limiting occupancy.

I would have normally agreed with you on my last comment regarding parents buying their kids homes (condos whatever) near school except that it was mentioned in two articles you linked to which leads me to think that it may not be as rare as you and I think. Actually given what school housing costs if you had enough money for a downpayment and closing costs and charged your kid and three of his friends rent it might not be as prohibitive as it seems at first glance and leave with a salable asset at the end of the day.
 
Visbek said:
...and if that worked, then no one would feel any need to pass additional zoning restrictions.
Click to expand...

actually that isn't why the city is passing them but that is ok.

What they are doing with their property does affect their neighbors, so it is relevant. That's why we have zoning laws.
Click to expand...

which these are residential zones and you can rent out residential property.
people do it all the time.

<< shakes head >>

Congratulations on showing a total failure to understand the difference between these two situations.
Click to expand...

it isn't my fault you make a bad argument.

there is no difference in renting out your car (uber/lyft)
or your home.
 
Visbek said:
...and if that worked, then no one would feel any need to pass additional zoning restrictions.



What they are doing with their property does affect their neighbors, so it is relevant. That's why we have zoning laws.



<< shakes head >>

Congratulations on showing a total failure to understand the difference between these two situations.
Click to expand...

The problem is they are using rentals as a scape goat for "quality of life" problems.
These problems happen with people who OWN houses too.
The problem is solved within existing noise and parking ordinances. Not by outright banning one potential source of the problem, but by regulating the problems themselves.
 
i don't view renting one's real property to be a public nuisance
but the implemented public restrictions treat it as one
there should be no global rental prohibition
because anyone experiencing a private nuisance should be expected to seek a civil settlement for any denial of private enjoyment they are caused to endure
there is no legitimate basis for the wholesale rental restrictions
 
Caine said:
The problem is they are using rentals as a scape goat for "quality of life" problems.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Let's be clear, we are talking about two different albeit related issues here.

1) Long-term rentals: There is abundant evidence that high concentrations of student rentals are causing issues for some communities. If those student populations weren't causing issues, or if existing restrictions were sufficient to handle the issues, there would be no need to pass additional regulations.

2) Short-term rentals: Many cities do already have laws on the books regulating short-term rentals, and those existing laws are -- unsurprisingly -- not designed to handle the increase in that activity. As such, municipalities are dealing with a variety of measures to try and deal with it.

I see little evidence of communities putting the cart before the horse, and regulating before it becomes an issue (long-term), or before observing problems in other municipalities (short-term).


These problems happen with people who OWN houses too.
Click to expand...
Really? Entire blocks of owner-occupied houses do keg races every weekend? Who knew?


The problem is solved within existing noise and parking ordinances.
Click to expand...
If that was the case, then why would any additional restrictions be required?

The reality is that many municipalities don't want to turn their cities into police states in order to keep student populations or AirBNB party houses from making too much noise. As such, regulating those uses often makes it easier, since it forces the property owner to comply, and thus essentially police themselves.

Similarly, putting regulations on the books can prevent the problem before it happens. It is hardly a new thing to establish a law to act as a deterrent.


Not by outright banning one potential source of the problem, but by regulating the problems themselves.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Again with the straw man.

No one is talking about banning all long-term renters in a municipality.

Few municipalities are talking about outright bans on short-term renters. Many already had laws on the books, and are trying to figure out how to enforce and/or modify existing regulations.
 
justabubba said:
i don't view renting one's real property to be a public nuisance
but the implemented public restrictions treat it as one
Click to expand...
Only when it becomes one.


there should be no global rental prohibition
Click to expand...
Good news! There are no global rental prohibitions on a municipal level.

HOAs might ban rentals, but those are private associations.


there is no legitimate basis for the wholesale rental restrictions
Click to expand...
There is, when large concentrations of renters are causing broader issues for a community.
 
Visbek said:
Only when it becomes one.



Good news! There are no global rental prohibitions on a municipal level.

HOAs might ban rentals, but those are private associations.



There is, when large concentrations of renters are causing broader issues for a community.
Click to expand...

again if someone is causing issues or making to much noise that is what the police are for.
why people think they have the right to force other people to do what they want with their private property is beyond me.

that is why I will never live in an HOA. I will be hell bent is someone else who doesn't live in my house pay my bills or my mortgage
tells me what to do with my property or that I have to ask permission to do something.

no the hotel industry is mad because people are renting out 3 or 4 bedroom houses for the same or less than their 2 bed room hotels.
that is why they are upset about it doing stuff.

they are putting a hurt on an industry and instead of becoming competitive they are crying to the government to stop it.

similar to how cities cracked down on uber and lyft because the cab industry started crying.

Why is New York City cracking down on Airbnb? | PBS NewsHour

poor guy has to compete with other people and doesn't like it.
 
clownboy said:
They already do, and it doesn't even pass through legislation - homeowner's associations tell property owners what to do all the time, and make the homeowners pay for the privilege of being told what to do.
Click to expand...

Homeowners associations are a different issue. In general you know what you get going in and if you don't like the issues, you just move on.
 
ludin said:
again if someone is causing issues or making to much noise that is what the police are for.
why people think they have the right to force other people to do what they want with their private property is beyond me.

that is why I will never live in an HOA. I will be hell bent is someone else who doesn't live in my house pay my bills or my mortgage
tells me what to do with my property or that I have to ask permission to do something.

no the hotel industry is mad because people are renting out 3 or 4 bedroom houses for the same or less than their 2 bed room hotels.
that is why they are upset about it doing stuff.

they are putting a hurt on an industry and instead of becoming competitive they are crying to the government to stop it.

similar to how cities cracked down on uber and lyft because the cab industry started crying.

Why is New York City cracking down on Airbnb? | PBS NewsHour

poor guy has to compete with other people and doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

exactly
they are using government power to subvert legitimate competition
 
Carjosse said:
I believe you should have the right to rent your home but the government can still regulate how you do it (e.g. to whom or rent control). It seems to me an adverse reaction to Airbnb.
Click to expand...

The local governments are not getting a percentage of the profits so naturally they are upset.
 
Carjosse said:
I believe you should have the right to rent your home but the government can still regulate how you do it (e.g. to whom or rent control). It seems to me an adverse reaction to Airbnb.
Click to expand...

In my city, it was an adverse reaction to renting. I lived on a cul-de-sac with nine homes. One belonged to a college professor who left the country with his family for a year and rented his home to four college students. A month later they had a party with a portable hot tub and the party attracted over 1,000 college students. Not long after that there was a strong movement to restrict renting private homes to groups of unmarried adults.
 
Patrickt said:
In my city, it was an adverse reaction to renting. I lived on a cul-de-sac with nine homes. One belonged to a college professor who left the country with his family for a year and rented his home to four college students. A month later they had a party with a portable hot tub and the party attracted over 1,000 college students. Not long after that there was a strong movement to restrict renting private homes to groups of unmarried adults.
Click to expand...

so, this singular instance where renters allowed the peace to be disturbed, which disturbance should be handled by the police, is the basis to deny other students the opportunity to rent housing at a reasonable rate
using that logic, homeowners should be denied the ability to reside in their homes if any homeowner ever hosts an event that disturbs the peace

what this restriction does is drive the price of rentals up, causing the demand for housing to exceed the availability. yea, let's jack up the cost of students to go to college
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom