zlacker

>>voisin+(OP)
Honest question: does this work?

It seems to me that this change will have unintended effects and will fail to produce the desired results.

AFAIK rent in NYC hasn’t gone down since they changed their short-term rental regulations.

I might be naive, but I’d assume that the solution is to build more housing to increase the supply instead of curbing the demand?

Genuinely curious about others’ takes on this.

>>lucasf+f2
I'm far from an expert but I'd think it would drive tourism prices up due to less supply of STR housing (which could harm a local economy, although a behemoth like Barcelona probably isn't super concerned here)

Prices may not go down on rents, but if it means that more folks who actually _want to live in the city_ can, I see that as a positive. I can see in NY the case where decrease in housing leads to folks being priced out and moving elsewhere (NJ, etc.)

Obviously not speaking with any data here.

>>cheeze+H2
Everyone wants lower housing prices, except for the house they currently own.

>>doctor+33
People who own a home, and don't have plans to move, would benefit from housing prices falling everywhere: property taxes go down, and other prices correlated with housing go down.

Two categories where people don't want pricing to go down:

If you have plans to move and prices aren't falling everywhere, the proceeds of a sale aren't enough to buy elsewhere.

And if your bank owns the home rather than you, falling prices screw you over because you owe far more to the bank than you could make by selling.

>>JoshTr+N4
Too bad prop 13 means prices would have to drop significantly before any longterm CA homeowner would see any drop. And the valuation dropping that much wiping out so much of their "on paper" wealth would be very unpopular.