Har har. Obviously (if you've been following the issue), the reason that the Board of Supres is "pushing new rules" (that is, "enacting legislation according to their City-afforded capabilities") is that the current enforcement mechanisms are comically ineffectual. Current law requires everyone who rents their place out on Airbnb to register with the city. So far, "roughly 1,400 of the estimated 7,000 or more residents who rent their homes and rooms have done so, the city estimates." SO, first of all, no one is trying "2 prevent homse sharing;" we were told we didn't need Prop F because the current system works and now the current system definitely doesn't work. Even the fucking CEO OF AIRBNB didn't bother to piddle with the little city registration system. Why would anyone else be a sucker and follow the law?
HENCE MY SNARK.
Then some dog got all up in my business.
I guess this means that since Prop F was defeated, Airbnb is now free to do anything they want. BASED ON OUR NEW POLICY, AIRBNB CAN NOW RAID YOUR FRIDGE ONCE PER WEEK. PLEASE LEAVE YOUR DOOR UNLOCKED. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN.
It went downhill from here.
BAD DOG! First of all, he or she didn't answer my question. I asked what we should do when the vast majority of Airbnb hosts are not in compliance. The response was "No the STR office. #duh They are the police." I suppose that means we should just let the STR (Short Term Rental, btw) office handle it? That actually makes sense if you're an Airbnb host and you don't want to bother following the law. #duh. By the time the STR cops catch up to you, the Earth will have been consumed by the Sun and Airbnb hosts on Titan will be advertising "STUNNING RING VIEWS!!!!"
As if it couldn't devolve any lower, the sad denoument:
Of course. My opinion that Airbnb hosts follow the fucking law necessarily means that I support vandalism. Also, that is some shitty lettering. Maybe something like this instead?
The real stupidity about the whole thing is that, based on the link to the Airbnb advertised on Dog's Twitter page, it appears that Dog rents out a room in Dog's house. I basically have no problem with that (within some limits). What I have a problem with is someone taking an entire home or apartment off the market and converting it into an illegal, full-time hotel. Like the one on my block - a 3-bedroom apartment that used to be occupied by 3 tenants and which is now occupied, at $300 a night, by a rotating cast of jackoffs smoking on the stoop. Or with building owners evicting tenants so they can rent out the rooms on Airbnb.
Is Airbnb solely responsible for the housing crisis in SF? Of course not. Partially responsible? Of course. Are rhetorical questions the best mode of making an argument? Not even close.
4 comments:
LOL, I had to block that account a long time ago
I really like how you've referred to "Dog" in this post. I think I will steal it.
I did not realize that a 11% difference in an election is "overwhelming"
GG - What?! And miss stuff like this?
Inger - *sweating, trying not to say "You're the man now, dog"*
Tia - In all fairness, I think any win over 10% in an election is pretty convincing. On the other hand, given the unbelievable amount of money Airbnb put into willfully misleading ads, I'm surprised it didn't lose by more.
Post a Comment