Posts Tagged ‘Airbnb’

So Much For Frisco’s Oversize Vehicle Overnight Parking Ban on Fell Street – Still Life in Mobile Homes

Monday, August 22nd, 2016

This was the promise, back in aught-twelve:

In 2012 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors enacted a new violation in the SF Transportation Code to address inappropriate parking of oversized vehicles on city streets. SFTC Section 7.2.54 prohibits parking a vehicle over 22 feet in length or over 7 feet in height, or camp trailers, fifth-wheel travel trailers, house cars, trailer coaches, mobilehomes, recreational vehicles, or semi-trailers, between the hours of 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. when SFMTA signs are posted giving notice.

And yet this is the reality, in 2016. (I’ll note that the one in front has the brand-name “BRAVE” written on it in large letters – that’d certainly be true if the owner/renter planned to leave it there past midnight.)

7J7C0780 copy

The millionaire homeowners of Fell wanted these rides gone from their view, but, well this is what they’re staring out when they walk down their stoops these days.

Of course this photo was made in the daytime, so maybe this caravan moves out every night to neighboring streets without the SFMTA ban? IDK, cause I’m sleeping during those hours, usually.

But actually, a ticket for just $110 sounds cheap compared with the cost of a tiny Airbnb apartment in the 94117 what could go for double that, easily, for one night.

I’ll have to do an RV nose count next time I’m skulking about the Panhandle after midnight…

AIRBNB UPDATE: When There’s Something Strange/ In Your Neighborhood/ Who You Gonna Call?/ HOSTBUSTERS!

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

OIOW:

If there’s something weird and it don’t look good
Who you gonna call? Hostbusters!

7J7C7969 (2) copy

Meet the team: San Francisco County Supervisors David Campos, Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin:

ghostbustersthetrio copy

Answer The Call

Ugly New Statue Appears South of Market – Like the Goddess of Democracy But Without Arms – “Venus de Rent Control”

Monday, June 13th, 2016

Man, this thing is surprisingly ugly. Here’s prolly the best way to show it, with the perpetually-clogged 8th Street (considered “excess road space” by our corrupt SFMTA, somehow).

20160610_185708 copy

A little closer and now it looks out of focus, non? The buildings in front and behind look to be in focus, but not the thing itself.

20160610_185652 copy

And here it is. (I swear this is in focus.)

7J7C7292 copy

Anyway, just like the real Goddess of Democracy, this thing was made in China, for better or worse.

IDK, man. Who signed off on this? Wouldn’t it have been better to have taxed the Father of Rent Control $5,000,000 and then have put the money in our General Fund?

This Photo from District 5 Shows How Airbnb Actually Lost, Big Time, with 2015’s Prop F

Wednesday, December 30th, 2015

Sry, Airbnb:

7J7C1824 copy

Also, the more ppl become exposed to Airbnb, the less they like Airbnb – that’s what the Airbnb’s Prop F “victory” shows us.

Let’s see how 2016 shakes out in the STR industry – look for some rules to get passed that weren’t actually written by Airbnb itself. This leg. could pass by 6-5 or 8-3 or 11-0 or something like that. But it aint going to get vetoed, that’s for sure.

Sry, Airbnb

Just 14 Points About Kara Swisher’s Fawning Interview / Prop F Victory Lap with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky

Monday, November 30th, 2015

Here you go, a podcast from yesterday:

November 29, 2015 | Re/code Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher – Brian Chesky, Airbnb CEO; Holiday Gift Guide

“Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky talks with Kara Swisher about the attacks in Paris, raising “a couple billion” and the future of…”

Start at 14:00:

  1. No Airbnb, you can’t really say you had a recent “victory” in SF. A pyrrhic victory, maybe. (But your $8+ million helped to defeat Prop F, I’ll concede that.)
  2. “It’s hard to be a tech company in SF.” What on Earth does this mean? Why don’t you leave then, if things are so, so hard (but not really, not IRL) here?
  3. Oh, so using SF’s direct democracy ballot system when, as in this case, we have regulatory capture of the $F Democratic Party (and other$) is not only immature but “ridiculously immature?” Again, one wonders why Airbnb chose to come here to this horrible, horrible place.
  4. In regard to the “Airbnb Law,” didn’t Airbnb meet with then-Supervisor David Chiu something on the order of sixty (60) (!) times to craft regs as favorable to Airbnb as practically possible? I think so. Am I wrong on this? David Chiu was/is a partner of Airbnb, non? David Chiu is now in the Assembly thanks, in part, to Airbnb, non? So that’s what some people mean by the term Airbnb Law. (And incidentally, it was/is an unworkable mess, with a very low compliance rate, so far.)
  5. No, Airbnb, Prop F would not have “ban[ned] in-law units.”
  6. No, Airbnb, Prop F would not “have created a private right of action,” for the simple reason that Prop F didn’t pass and yet San Franciscans have a private right of action right now.
  7. Let’s stop now to ponder – does Kara Swisher know any of this stuff? She’s not up-to-speed, apparently, or she is and she wants to conduct a fawning interview. I’ll tell you, so far so good, KS. Mission accomplished.
  8. Does one need to be “against Airbnb” to approve of regulating Airbnb?
  9. “Even the San Francisco Chronicle…” I don’t know what this means. Was this editorial from the Publisher a surprise? Not at all. Also note that the Chron calls for changes to the regs cooked up by Airbnb and David Chiu…
  10. “[T]here’s this notion that we aren’t paying our share of taxes.” Well, here’s where that comes from. How much in hotel taxes should Airbnb have remitted as opposed to the mystery amount that it actually did – well, that’s not really knowable from outside of Airbnb.
  11. “We’re not jerks.” So why not explain what happened with the bus ads? Your choice, Airbnb. Are the people down in Socal who made the ads jerks? What did you do, just throw money around and say, oh don’t bother us, just make a contract with ClearChannel after you run it by a solitary Airbnber – that’ll be fine. We like surprises! And of course, this ad campaign was totally totally independent of anything having to do with Prop F. Of course.
  12. “Volunteers” knocking on 285,000 doors? Weren’t some of those “volunteers” actually paid, like with cash money? Yep. You want to get into this? We can get into this.
  13. Reference to “party houses.” I don’t think this issue was addressed. Or Airbnb Hotel, neither – these We Heart Airbnb podcast people didn’t have time to get into these things. I guess they were too busy with the “Holiday Gift Guide,” IDK.
  14. And what’s this – “I think the vast, vast majority of people are renting the homes they live in.” So what’s that as a number, is it 51%? IDK. Doesn’t Airbnb know this stat for San Francisco, like down to five significant digits? I think so. And how about this – most Airbnb units in SF are being rented out by people who rent out multiple Airbnb units. Is that true? Isn’t that a problem?

I think we’re at 24:00 now, so that’s ten minutes of audio for you to listen to.

(I don’t think I could have handled much more anyway.)

I leave you with this – here’s how one City Hall insider viewed things last summer:

“After Mayor Lee and the Board of Supervisors screwed up short-term rental legislation not once but twice, voters now face a choice: keep current law or replace it with Prop F. Those upset over “ballot box planning” should blame City Hall for not enacting the handful of changes that would have either prevented Prop F from going to the ballot or ensured its defeat.”

Airbnb don’t want no Prop F, so one assumes it’s all prepared for City Hall to take a fresh look at this regulatory mess (that Airbnb helped create) come 2016. Fine.

Oh, and just One More Thing:

andre-the-giant-has-a-posse-copy

Sometimes when you win, you also lose…

Wow, Look at How Proud San Francisco Firefighters are About Supporting Our Annual Stripper Club Christmas Toy Drive – And Look, Airbnb!

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

Get up to speed here and then try to see who’s sponsoring this year’s shindig here. These days, our local SFFD union doesn’t seem all that proud of this Christmas tradition at all:

Capturesfsfsss

And check it, from our local Paper Of Record last year:

Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.

Signs of the Times: “Bernie 2016, Aaron Peskin for Supervisor, Yes on F Fix the Airbnb Mess”

Monday, November 2nd, 2015

As seen in the 94117:

7J7C8264 copy

These signs pretty much go with each other…

PROP F Fever Hits “West NoPA” – A Great Debate at USF Sponsored by Local NIMBY Org PRO-SF – Tuesday, Oct 27th 2015

Monday, October 26th, 2015

Here’s the info – just try finding it online via Google. It’s hard.

7J7C9771 copy

But here’s your preview, courtesy of the west si-iiide, on page 3.

And here’s what’s funny – if the only reason you can stay in SF and pay your mortgage is because you’ve been breaking our regs for, what, the past decade or so eight years, well, maybe you shouldn’t be living here. Some ppl out in the west side operate illegal grow houses or cat houses and that’s how they pay their mortgages, but that’s not right neither, right? I’ll tell you, all Airbnb rentals the past decade in SF up ’til February have been agin the rules, right? And most of them rentals right now still are, right? So what kind of ppl are we legalizing here, one wonders.

And it’s hard to tell how our local millionaire property owners who live, and I’m srsly, west of north of east of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle will come out on the illegal hotel issue. One suspects that the West NoPa crew would generally be supportive of Prop F, but that’s just a guess…

Oh look, here are all the semi-native parrots of West NoPA what are flying to USF right now to parrot the Airbnb line:

go8f7630a1a

Let’s hope dese boids are getting big bucks / stock options from the Airbnb. Let’s hope they’re not mere “volunteers” working on this most expensive of political campaigns…

How Airbnb Views San Francisco Residents: A Bunch of Angry Aging “Snitchers” – NO ON PROP F Campaign Harming Image of Airbnb

Friday, October 16th, 2015

Actually, Airbnb here is dramatizing the current regulations of San Francisco, regulations which Airbnb spent a lot of time and effort to enact:

So yes, a senile person can contact SFGov anonymously about an illegal Airbnb hotel operating where it shouldn’t, but this isn’t a possible post Prop F future, it’s what’s possible right now.

This is how you view San Franciscans, Airbnb?

OK fine.

Whoo Boy: “LEGAL REVIEW FINDS PROP. F LAWSUITS MAY RESULT IN $435,000 AWARD FOR MINOR, ALLEGED VIOLATIONS”

Friday, October 2nd, 2015

Airbnb is pulling out all the stops here.

Let me just say that first of all, no “minor” violations of San Francisco’s short term rental laws will result in anything like a $435K award. Sorry. And also, by the time any “awards” are handed out, said violations are no longer merely “alleged,” but actually proven.

And now, on with the show:

“Noted Law Firm Browne George Ross LLP Provides Review of Legal Impacts of San Francisco’s Prop. F

Proposition F creates a profit-motivated private right of action even if the City and County of San Francisco finds no violation.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? YEP. WHAT PROP F ADDS ON TOP OF THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OF $250-$1000 A DAY, ASSUMING THAT THE RESIDENTS BRINGING SUIT ACTUALLY WIN. THE REASON THAT THIS ACTION WOULD BE ALLOWED INDEPENDENT OF WHAT SFGOV DOES IS THAT SOMETIMES SFGOV LIKES TO SIT ON ITS HANDS AND DO NOTHING, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IT’S DONE VERY LITTLE TO REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS THE LIKES OF WHICH WE’VE BEEN SEEING THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND, IN FACT, THE LITTLE THAT SFGOV HAS BEEN DOING LATELY WAS SPURRED ON BY THE PROSPECT OF PROP F. SO ACTUALLY, PROP F IS GOOD BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY PAYING OFF. AND, AS FAR AS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED” IS CONCERNED, SOMETHING SIMILAR IS ALREADY IN CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING LANDLORD REFUNDS OF RENTAL DEPOSITS. SO IF A LANDLORD IMPROPERLY RETAINS AN APARTMENT SECURITY DEPOSIT, THE TENANT CAN SUE FOR NOT ONLY THE WRONGFULLY RETAINED PART BUT ALSO AN AMOUNT DOUBLE THE DEPOSIT AS A KIND OF SPECIAL DAMAGES. SO A LANDLORD’S MOUTHPIECE COULD ARGUE THAT THE TENANT SUING IS “PROFIT-MOTIVATED,” BUT THAT WOULDN’T ACTUALLY BE TRUE, RIGHT? AND IN FACT, THIS RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND LAW SCARES LANDLORDS INTO DOING THE RIGHT THING, SO THAT NO LEGAL ACTION EVER NEEDS TO GET KICKED INTO ACTION. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

In other words if someone wishes to sue their neighbor even after the city and County of San Francisco has determined there is no violation, an unscrupulous individual can still file a lawsuit and simply claim damages amounting to as much as $435,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

WELL, THIS LOS ANGELES-BASED LAW FIRM IS SIMPLY ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER USING AIRBNB OR WHATEVER TO VIOLATE OUR LAWS WOULD BE A NEIGHBOR OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AFFECTED. BUT LOTS OF AIRBNBERS DON’T EVEN LIVE IN SF, RIGHT? SO IT’S RATHER MORE RESIDENT SUING AIRBNBER AS OPPOSED TO “NEIGHBOR SUING NEIGHBOR,” RIGHT? AND HEY, HOW CAN AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL” GET AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? AND HEY, “NOTED” LA LAW FIRM WHAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF AFORE, HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER REPRESENTED AN “UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUAL?” HMMM… THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ON. IN ANY EVENT, UNSCRUPULOUS INDIVIDUALS  WITH WORTHLESS CASES WON’T WIN AT COURT SO THEY WON’T GET ANY DAMAGES AT ALL, RIGHT? AND LET ME JUST SAY, ANY AIRBNBER WHO ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING $435K PLUS HAS REALLY REALLY REALLY SCREWED UP. THESE WILL BE UNIQUE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY.

Because litigation is so incredibly expensive, time consuming and stressful many people will pay to get out of suits even though they have done nothing wrong.

BOY, WHAT A PITCH FROM A LAW FIRM – YOU DON’T NEED US, JUST PAY ALL THE MONEY ANYBODY EVER ASKS FOR AND THEN WAIT FOR THE NEWS TO SPREAD AND THEN GET SUED AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND NOTE HERE, I’M NOT ARGUING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR AIRBNBERS (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GOOD FOR SOME) – I’M SAYING THAT PROP F IS GOOD FOR SAN FRANCISCO. AND ACTUALLY, PROP F WOULD BE GOOD FOR LOS ANGELES LAW FIRMS, POSSIBLY, IF LA-BASED AIRBNBERS GET SUED IN SF AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL ATTORNEY, THEN MAYBE EVEN THIS LA FIRM COULD GET IN ON THE ACTION.

Proposition F will exponentially exacerbate the problem by encouraging an untold number of new lawsuits, thus delaying even more those who appropriately seek justice through San Francisco Superior Court

WELL LET’S SEE HERE. PROP F WILL BE BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET AS FAR AS SF SUP CT IS CONCERNED. IT’S NOT GOING TO EXPONENTIALLY DO ANYTHING.

FIN.