For my definition of the commons being eroded by AirBnB, see my reply to eddieroger above.
In a sense you are right that "democratic" doesn't necessarily mean just or morally good, but I don't think you can compare what are essentially civil rights with property rights. I agree that laws should be backed with arguments about why they are needed and beneficial--though you realize it's not always possible to go into such details when I'm already so far off topic :-)
So here is my quick defense of SF's banning of short-term rentals (essentially making all AirBnB rentals in SF illegal): Regulating property is about zoning and controlling the market so that financial forces don't overwhelm the people involved. It is the city's responsibility to keep the city livable for its residents. This regulation defends local communities and avoids the instability of speculation properties, evictions for AirBnB conversions, etc.
Note that I think the total ban is both slightly too strict and probably expensive to enforce. That's why I advocate for a new policy: allow any owner (and renter) to do short-term sublets up to a limit of 30-40 days per year. For renters, they are limited to collecting the full amount of their rent in any calendar month, and any additional money collected belongs to the landlord. And finally, any 3rd party booking service must enforce these limits, collect hotel and sales tax, and turn records over to the city. That way people (even renters) can rent out when they go on vacation or make a little extra money, the city gets an elastic supply of rooms for big conventions, concerts, and sports events, but residential stays residential the other 330 days of the year and housing doesn't get bought up by speculators, nor does it have a bubble due to the value of AirBnB conversion.
Comments
For my definition of the commons being eroded by AirBnB, see my reply to eddieroger above.
In a sense you are right that "democratic" doesn't necessarily mean just or morally good, but I don't think you can compare what are essentially civil rights with property rights. I agree that laws should be backed with arguments about why they are needed and beneficial--though you realize it's not always possible to go into such details when I'm already so far off topic :-)
So here is my quick defense of SF's banning of short-term rentals (essentially making all AirBnB rentals in SF illegal): Regulating property is about zoning and controlling the market so that financial forces don't overwhelm the people involved. It is the city's responsibility to keep the city livable for its residents. This regulation defends local communities and avoids the instability of speculation properties, evictions for AirBnB conversions, etc.
Note that I think the total ban is both slightly too strict and probably expensive to enforce. That's why I advocate for a new policy: allow any owner (and renter) to do short-term sublets up to a limit of 30-40 days per year. For renters, they are limited to collecting the full amount of their rent in any calendar month, and any additional money collected belongs to the landlord. And finally, any 3rd party booking service must enforce these limits, collect hotel and sales tax, and turn records over to the city. That way people (even renters) can rent out when they go on vacation or make a little extra money, the city gets an elastic supply of rooms for big conventions, concerts, and sports events, but residential stays residential the other 330 days of the year and housing doesn't get bought up by speculators, nor does it have a bubble due to the value of AirBnB conversion.