A screenshot from yesterday’s airbnb site, featuring two complete units for short-term “holiday” rental (probably taking them out of the city’s rental supply semi-permanently) and one share room (a mortgage or rent helper for the long-term tenant or owner, maybe?).
Allen Garr in The Courier has written two long columns on airbnb, last week and this week, both negative about its impact on the city. One bite from yesterday’s:
While the city of Vancouver continues, as it has for years now, to do nothing more than ponder the problems of short-term rentals, the likes of Airbnb continue to encourage illegal activities that significantly reduce the availability of affordable rental properties and drive up the cost of real estate.
The activities are illegal because they violate a city zoning restriction that prohibits rentals of less than 30 days without a license for a hotel or a bed and breakfast operation. According to the city’s chief housing officer Mukhtar Latif, this is the case in virtually all Airbnb listing in Vancouver, which, as I noted last week, number 4,728 — of which 67 per cent, or 3,179, are either complete homes or apartments.
Simon Fraser University graduate student Karen Sawatzky has been drilling away at this issue for almost three years now as she puts together her Urban Studies master’s thesis on the impact Airbnb has been having on affordable rental housing in our city.
She notes several city policies that are in conflict with the growing impact of Airbnb aside from the zoning bylaw on short-term rentals. There is also the great amount of noise the city makes about being a green city with affordable housing. Yet because of Airbnb, more people are forced out of the core of the city where they could either walk to work or cycle and instead are required to commute.
Aside from impact on the environment, a city study pointed out that by adding the cost of commuting to the cost of rent for those forced out of the city’s core, the cost of living is less affordable than simply renting in Kits or the West End.
I’ve used airbnb in Seattle, Fort Worth, Barcelona, Kuala Lumpur, Malacca, Marrakech, Tangier and elsewhere; only in Barcelona was there a hint of it being “destructive” in the sense of smashing through regulations (by not paying tax). It depends on the city, and Vancouver is obviously one where it is having a deep impact.
I’m a survivor, just barely, of the so-called “creative destruction” of Amazon (and Chapters in Canada) – a business model that drives authors’ royalties to near zero, puts publishers on the brink of bankruptcy, and pushes independent bookstores to the wall. I’m watching the “Uber alles”-taxi battle here with interest, wondering if it’s just a variation on the egg-quota wars under our supply-managed food system.
Is there some middle ground that would allow airbnb to operate, or is it just destructive of our need to have a stable population in good rental accommodation?
When property values appreciate at several to many times the rent that an owner can get from an investment property, curtailing Air BnBs may simply encourage investor owners to keep properties empty rather than renting them out the regular way. Many investors simply don’t want to deal with the restrictions and obligations imposed by rental legislation.
The internet and smartphones, and soon driverless vehicles, are disruptive technologies. There are winners and losers.
(Overpaid) bureaucrats rule our lives to benefit THEM mainly. Yes we should allow Uber and AirBnB. Strata buildings can make their own rules, and many have decided to not allow it on their private property. That makes sense to me. If you own a house and want to rent a room by the day or week, why not ?
I was in Edmonton last week when they cancelled Uber there. Took a smelly cab instead. That is progress ? Vancouver needs Uber – ASAP ! Smartphones allow you to see where teh car is. Cabs are from a yester-year world, abused by cities for licensing revenue so they can continue to overpay their employees.
The over-regulation zealotry is shameful.
Are you advocating municipalities should take a laissez-faire approach to AirBnB, or do you think they should create clear supportive regulations? Every complaint residents make about increased density (where will people park? Who pays for the extra water and sewer and policing? It wrecks the “character” of my neighbourhood! Etc.) can be extended to AirBnB. Most municipalities have a hotel room tax to pay for regional tourism program – something the hotels agreed to, yet AirBnB gets the benefit without needing to contribute? Are tenants renting month-to-month through AirBnB protected by the Residential Tenancy Act, and should they be?
I’m not against AirBnB, and have had both great and not-so-great experiences with them. I think, much like Uber, we need to have a rational conversation about what the problems with our existing regulatory regime are, and the opportunities these “disruptive” technologies offer to improve our communities.
+1
Thomas you are an advocate of making people pay to park money in housing, why should uber also not pay, or airbnb? Level the playing field, so to speak.
I think Uber can be great, I also think it need to have rules for driver and car competence and safety.
I think AirBnB can be great, but it can’t exist at the same time as laws say you can’t rent for less than 30 days, and it can’t exist if it doesn’t pay taxes, and it can’t exist if it displaces local tenants unless it pays the same parking fees as vacant housing should.
Sometimes rules are good … and those rules that are good, should be followed by all.
Fair enough. AirBnB clearly need to share some of their revenues with cities if you run a commercial operation, as does Uber. My understanding is that many cities now get a share of Uber revenue, to compensate for lower cab licensing fees and their overhead. Perhaps a separate blog post here on various practices in various cities is in order.
(I didn’t see this post when I wrote my reply below … glad you’re in favour of parking fees for AirBnB)… but where does the determination of ‘commercial operation’ come from? Does AirBnB police that? … it’s a slippery slope isn’t it to parse commercial vs non?)
(Overpaid) bureaucrats rule our lives to benefit THEM mainly.
I’ll remember that comment next time I need to call the City to unplug their sewer line. As far as I am concerned, when you are forced to deal with other people’s shit, you should get paid well to do so.
Yes they should be paid well, but not above market, as is usually the case when counting lifetime benefits, pensions, hours worked and low risk of layoff. http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7290-public-sector-workers-oped.html
The Uber ban is primarily about licensing fees from cab plates as well as donations by the cab owner union to city hall and mayor’s re-election campaign. It has NOTHING to do with benefits to users or
“safety”.
I’m pretty sure that ‘overpaid’ public sector workers could easily be looked at as being more reflective of an underpaid private sector than anything else.
Why is it ok to have the private sector no longer providing lifetime benefits, pensions, hours worked and low risk of layoff? It keeps being said as ‘just the way it is’ … and the more it is repeated, the more it will be true.
“Yes they should be paid well, but not above market”, so pay the market more.
@ architectus: Spoken like a true socialist, or a public servant ?
The market pays what the market must as there is competition for products, services and employees. If AirCanada paid well above WestJet, for example, they’d be out of business. If they underpaid no one, or not enough would show up as employees are free to quit. Ditto with GM or Ford or any firm that competes for services or products. Or Ikea. Or McDonalds. Or any small firm.
THE BIGGEST problem the western world faces is not “the climate” or immigration or starvation or or violence or terrorism or house prices but unfunded liabilities and excessive debt, caused by excessive spending, much of it on wages for a far too large, and far too overpaid public sector, brought on by professional politicians that do not keep the public sector wage & benefit scale in check. They can as there is no competition in the public sector. They are even allowed to strike.
Check out some of the MANY articles about unsustainable public sector wages, benefits such as pensions here: https://www.google.ca/search?q=unsustainable+public+sector+pensions
That is the main reason for Uber opposition: overpaid civil servants clinging to their jobs as they need the license plate sales for city revenue and politicians that need campaign contributions, and they do not want to increase property or parking taxes as they should. They just coat a “green message” and pretend it is about safety, licensing requirements, insurance .. meh .. all mere sideshows to protect the (overpaid) guild.
For all of Christy Clark’s & BC Liberal’s failings (and there are many) at least she keeps the budget in line and taxes low, unlike most provinces now leaning left and spending like there is no tomorrow. The federal government now $30B+ in debt per year. wow.
“THE BIGGEST problem the western world faces is… (a) far too overpaid public sector.”
Wow, that’s quite a categorical statement. I was under the impression it might kooky things like flying 350 person years of labour at $100,000 per year into the ground to amuse war-addicts.
This excessive social entitlement just sounds so horroble http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/ … whatever can they be thinking … overtaxation makes for such awful places.
Whereas the UK is starving its own people and telling people with MS that they’re fit to work, has basically zero economy outside of London, is paying more and getting less from all its privatized (formerly national) rail/power/airports/mail. They are in effect embracing the ‘pull yourself up’ mentality which the sharing economy embodies, sell everything you can for whatever you can, to whoever wants to buy. Look how well that’s working for them.
Are you sure you’re rooting for / wanting to emulate the right side of the channel on this one? The EU isn’t why the UK is having issues … this isn’t to say that the EU doesn’t have issues of its own, but I think its better argued that the EU should be closer together, a United States of Europe, than to fragment away in fits of nationalistic zeal (Hungary is already going that way also). Its a small step from UKIP to Trump to a future I think none of us want to contemplate.
I got mine. F^^k Off … is not the way to run a country, and if everyone is to become a private contractor, where does that stop? Already this system is being used to deny benefits, deny liability, avoid taxes … lets consider a hyperbolic example … the sharing economy army, every soldier up for sale to the highest bidder. How about the sharing police? The sharing fire department?
Where you see democratic, I and many others see anarchistic capitalism, that isn’t to say there isn’t a place for them, or can’t be a place for them, but not if they are left entirely to their own devices and subject only to their own internal regulation.
(we’re taking this away from the subject now … and as I recently took a ‘political leanings quiz’, I can tell you that yes, I tend strongly to the Yanis Varoufakis end of the spectrum, though I am not in any way a public servant)
Finally, “If AirCanada paid well above WestJet, for example, they’d be out of business.” … well, lets look at Costco vs Sams Club http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/17/walmart-pays-workers-poorly-and-sinks-while-costco-pays-workers-well-and-sails-proof-that-you-get-what-you-pay-for/#302f98e5bc3d … sorry, I call bullshit on that one.
I’m more sympathetic to uber than I am airbnb (as taxis certainly have their own issues here), but until issues such as finding ways to ensure the safety of both the driver and the vehicle are ironed out, I’m skeptical … I’m even more skeptical of GM’s uber clone which allows any schmuck to rent a car and become a taxi http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/industry-news/gm-will-rent-cars-to-drivers-of-ride-hailing-program/article29243961/ … if taxis here were as good as the ones in, say, germany, I would always try to choose either taxi or car2go equivalent over one of them. AirBnB could easily start playing by the rules, whatever the local rules might be, and has every right to lobby the changing of local rules, but in choosing not to, follow existing rules, it sets itself apart unfairly from its competition, and especially as it seems to be seriously screwing with the local rental market/availability, that’s just not cool. They are ‘squatting’ just as much as the free parkers are doing … you’re all for monetizing squatting cars, AirBnB’s squatting apartments also?
Finally, on salary differential: http://mollycrabapple.tumblr.com/post/12071060462
Dealing with bad renters is not uncommon. Why bother with all the hassles of the Residential Tenancy Branch either, when AirBnB can send an owner guests that have been vetted?
Short tern apartment, or house rentals are not new. AirBnB have just brought them to the fore with todays on-line marketing, organizing and banking technologies.
It’s a lot easier to go after AirBnB than it is to change policies that explicitly limit the number of residential units allowed in Vancouver and disincentivize rental construction. Doesn’t mean it’s the best (or even second-best) policy option.
My main concern is that cracking down on AirBnB is not likely to work in the long term. AirBnB units are close substitutes for hotel rooms – eliminating 3000 AirBnB rentals would make it more attractive for developers to build new hotels instead of new long-term residential buildings. In the long term (which matters most!) Garr and Sawatsky’s preferred policies will probably just shift visitors from AirBnB to “official” hotels, not significantly affect the quantity of housing for long-term residents.
Internet enabled technologies are transforming life styles and consequently the shape and functions of urban environments. What will the city look like when everything becomes available to anyone, everywhere at any time? Do these technologies undermine the very reason for building cities in the first place? Would we all be better off and happier with thousands of company villages spread across the Canadian biosphere and enabled by internet technologies?
When it comes to taxes, municipal hotel taxes, AirBnB is a bit like smuggling. AirBnB is clearly cheaper because there’s no massive hotel overhead and no municipal hotel tax.
People have been avoiding taxes for thousands of years. Duty-free purchases are tax avoidance. Cheap gasoline in Abbotsford or Blaine is tax avoidance. To a certain degree making your own beer and wine is tax avoidance. Everyone who does it knows very well how cheap it is. PayPal can help us avoid bank and post office fees.
If AirBnB and others continue to be successful then they might start affecting hotel financials and then the hotel taxes might have to come down, or be withdrawn. Punitive taxes are always avoided when possible.
Right now governments derive taxes from telcos. What if an operator comes along with strong enough signals from a satellite or across the border and offers cheaper, no local tax, service?
As new technologies emerge and if taxes or costs are excessively increased, governments will lose increasing amounts of revenue.
Isn’t it funny how the Vision majority does nothing about AirBnB yet drags their feet over Uber. I guess whatever hotel association exists isn’t as effective with their donations as the taxi owners.
Vision pretends to be one thing but it’s just a plush latter-day Tammany Hall with the occasional bike.
What artitectus doesn’t have to understand is that in the private sector all work, unless corrupt, is done based on quality, service and price. Price is often the primary criterion that many customers consider, including many public-sector bureaucrats that have to deal with the private sector.
Unless all three are carefully considered the private entity goes belly-up and ceases to exist throwing all involved out of work..
In the public world none of the above is paramount and mostly irrelevant except in rare instances. In BC we currently have a provincial government that is one of those rare instances.
There is little or no public good to AirBnB. The lodging industry collects hotel taxes which directly fund tourism boards that promote the destination, AirBnB doesn’t. Hotels pay the business tax rate on property taxes, most AirBnB’s don’t. Hotel owners pay income taxes, you can bet most AirBnB owners don’t declare their income. Hotels generally employ unionized workers who make a decent wage, many jobs in the sector are ideal for recent immigrants starting off on the economic ladder.
Like many aspects of the mislabeled “sharing economy” only the organizing company and the direct operator enjoy any direct benefit. The whole “sharing economy” is merely another sign of our declining standard of living.
Or it is a way to escape overtaxation, i.e. a democratic way to say “enough is enough”.
Taxation levels here in Canada are not yet nearly as bad as in the EU but heading that way, with 50%+ on incomes there, 20%+ on GST, very high fuel taxes / carbon taxes .. plus surcharges and insane regulations on almost everything from hiring employees to housing to farming to hotels to construction. The main reason Britian is considering leaving the EU is excessive regulations and excessive social entitlement programs.
I guess AirBnB is a bit like dope consuming or drinking booze; there’s really nothing you can do to stop it – even if you try. With over 2 million listings in an almost incomprehensible 34,000 cities across 190 countries the people have said, yes.
We had renters in our suite but they left. We considered renting again or trying airbnb, which we did. It was a bit of work setting it up, but make more now than we did with renters and our price goes up in summer, and are already half booked, ensuring we will make far more than we did with renters. It’s also way more flexible if we have family or friends in town, we just block it off.
We did have some friends say we should rent it to support locals who need a place but that made me ask, why is that my job? Why should home owners be responsible for providing rental housing?
If the city and province wants homeowners to rent out suites in houses, they could provide incentives. Such as tax credits on home renovations for houses with rented suites. Of course Airbnb rentals should also be appropriately taxed, as they are in other cities. Even with taxation Airbnb is very attractive to homeowners for the reasons Don mentioned.
Many jurisdictions do not want to legitimize AirBnB by requiring it to collect and remit taxes.