zlacker

>>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
What mechanism do you use to choose who can live in a central district, if not the ability to pay market rent?

Right to live where you are born? That adversely affects anyone not born in a central district.

>>d_t_w+Jl
Right to live where you are born would be possible - it is neither better nor worse than the current mechanism, just different. But the question remains if there's a way to change market rate, so more people can pay it. Berlin seems to be trying that by banning things which aren't desirable from their perspective.

> Right to live where you are born? That adversely affects anyone not born in a central district.

Thinking about it, this reminds me of the question of immigration. People usually say that one shouldn't be allowed to immigrate wherever he wants and/or that politicans are beholden to the people of their country, not the whole world. So .. what's the difference between a city and a country here? Why should the city council not put the wishes of those born there first?

>>sgift+YA
>People usually say that one shouldn't be allowed to immigrate wherever he wants

That is a very weak position, do you actually believe things can be true because "People usually say that"? Either immigration between countries is wrong in some way that generalizes to immigration between cities, or you can't use the fact that immigration is by default illegal to support your position.

Not allowing unrestricted immigration between countries is usually a pragmatic consideration, that is related to how countries usually spend their money vs. how they earn their money. Social expenditure, for instance, is usually planned based on the amount of tax the state gets from an average citizen, importing a lot of people who will pay less in taxes means you either have to degrade the quality of service for everyone, or start discriminating between people when spending on them (which betrays the concept of welfare spending as a 'safety net' - it's supposed to serve people who can't earn enough to provide for themselves or their family). Sometimes anti-immigration sentiment is motivated by nationalism or racism, even to the extent that people aren't allowed to live where they were born, and it would be a shame to reproduce those ideas on a city level.