zlacker

> Tourists should sleep in hotels and locals should sleep in their flats.

What if we let people decide what they should/n't do with their own property instead?

>>mattri+(OP)
That’s not how it works. There are already some laws that don’t allow owners to do certain things in/with their property (for example, you cannot just convert your flat into a disco for obvious reasons).

>>mattri+(OP)
Well the people are deciding what they want to do with their own city. Individualism has its limits.

>>mattri+(OP)
Because we're adults that realize garbage dumps shouldn't be next to schools. And sometimes as society we make decisions that are good for the majority of people. I'm sure you'd love it if someone poisoned your ground water, but they did it by burying toxic materials on their property.

>>mattri+(OP)
I see you've never lived next to an Airbnb.

>>mattri+(OP)
Your property is still subject to local and national laws and regulations, it's not some lawless piece of property where you can do whatever you want just because your name is on the property document.

I might own my own apartment, but I can't turn it into a pub, I can't turn it into a disco, I can't turn it into an auto service garage, I can't grow weed in it, I can't turn it into a shop, all these I can't do because it will negatively affect the life of my neighbors.

>>thinki+N1
When Airbnb landlords won't rent to locals at all because it's not convenient enough for them do so what will you do for the good of the majority of the people? Forcefully seize their apartment because people need it?

>>mattri+(OP)
Would you be okay with your neighbor using the same argument and running an industrial scale chemical manufacturing plant from their apartment? It is their own property after all.

>>mattri+D3
That's very hyperbolized. It's still convenient to them, just less profitable. If they have mortgages less profit is better than no profit in all scenarios.

I knew an Airbnb host in Italy, he shared with me that by renting to tourist compared to the normal market prices to locals he would make 3 times more. It's a no brainer, but he would gladly accept 1/3 of that if the alternative is 0 (and he did during the pandemic when tourism stopped).

>>mattri+D3
Those property rights exist because the locals consent to them. If the landlords' behavior undermines that consent then it only makes sense that the locals would revoke the property rights.

How else, besides continued maintenance of that consent, would property rights get their legitimacy?

>>mattri+D3
No need to forcibly sieze it. Simply outlaw dedicated short term rentals of apartments and houses and let the owners decide what to do with their apartment after that.

>>mattri+(OP)
Hold on, gonna go fire up some garbage incinerators in my yard to help pay for my mortgage.

>>mattri+(OP)
What if we hold people accountable to the zoning rules in an area they CHOSE to purchase within? You don't want zoning rules, you are free to purchase in a local that doesn't have and/or forbids zoning laws.

>>_DeadF+M6
That is a good point and I totally agree with that, if you bought a house there for short-term rents then (in this case) you most likely made a risky investment.

>>mattri+D3
No. You just tax the living daylights out of the empty houses so that they will have to utilize or rent them. That is ALREADY the law in Spain, by the way.

> Forcefully seize their apartment because people need it?

The needs of the many come before the needs of the few. Someone said it somewhere across the ocean. But the country where it was said does not heed it at all. The rest of the world does.

>>mattri+D3
:)

>>__Matr+h6
Under that logic your breathing is a matter of their continued consent and lynch mobs are an expression of a democratic society. Protection of minority rights is an important function in government.