Berlin Is Banning Most Vacation Apartment Rentals

>>halduj+(OP)
The dynamic is a little different than in most other cities. What's really happening here is that cheap rent is a kind of entitlement in Berlin: rent controls extend across tenants so getting an apartment is really about persuading a landlord to take you rather than bidding at an appropriate price point. AirBnB gets around this by allowing rentals at arbitrary price points. This is true whether it's an owner or a renter doing the leasing, which is very different from other markets in which it's mostly a concern of renters abusing their leases.

> "The Berlin Senate’s ruling nonetheless reflects a general feeling across a city in which homes are getting harder to find: Berliners have had enough and they want their city back."

Translation: There is no pricing mechanism on rents in the city and it is becoming increasingly impossible to find an apartment.

While it's certainly true that AirBnB essentially allows landlords to flout the law, it's worth noting that the adverse effects of price ceilings on supply are the root cause of Berlin's problems and this will not solve the underlying problem of rents being far from equilibrium.

>>jvm+ih
A free market price would not fix anything - every tiny bit of flatland is already used. What you are saying is basically: Only rich people should have the right to live in central districts. I disagree and so do most Berliners.

>>doener+fl
Remove zoning restrictions, reduce barriers to development, and let density rise dramatically to meet demand.

Dozens of cities around the world are suffering from rejecting capitalism of property and the consequences will be the long run slow bleeding out to locations more accepting of economic reality.

Even in the most expensive places to live - Bay Area, central Tokyo, Venice, etc - if builders could build to their hearts content and see rapid high-rise housing development (first to meet the wealthy demand, and gradually to meet all other demand that turns a profit) you end up with affordable low income housing and extreme growth for the whole metro area, which means prosperity.

IE, rather than holding back development and costing yourself tremendous fiscal gains, you let those happen and tax the fuck out of them to make life better for all those displaced. Use tax money from more unfettered capitalism to improve the situation of the poor, rather than holding back markets for the sake of the poor, who are then also worse off.

>>zanny+Pp
You make it sound so easy. From [1]:

    Let’s look at one of those deals in detail.
    In 2004, Frank McCourt sold 23 acres of open
    parking lots on the South Boston waterfront to
    News Corp. for $145 million ... Two years later,
    News Corp. sold the same land ... to Morgan
    Stanley for $204 million. ... When the
    BRA [Boston Redevelopment Authority] approved
    the Seaport Square Master Plan, paving the way
    for major development of midsize towers in 2010,
    the land finally had real value. ... To limit
    speculating, the BRA could have made Morgan
    Stanley’s Seaport approvals non-transferrable.
    But it didn’t.

    Instead, over the next five years, Morgan Stanley
    parceled out its 23 ...  acres ... for a total
    of $654 million. ...

    After changing so many hands, ... housing, like
    at Waterside Place, where a 598-square-foot
    one-bedroom can be all yours for $2,685 per month.

Where the ellipses ("...") have been added for brevity.

When the people who are engaging in housing development are shaping policy to maximize short term profit, this is the result.

I don't have a clear understanding of how to prevent this from happening but my strong suspicion is that better government regulation needs to be in place that holds the public interest at heart.

Disclaimer: I live in the Boston area.

[1] http://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/article/2016/02/21/bo...

zlacker