If there’s something weird and it don’t look good
Who you gonna call? Hostbusters!
Answer The Call
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.
And here it is. (I swear this is in focus.)
Anyway, just like the real Goddess of Democracy, this thing was made in China, for better or worse.
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.
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:
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:
Sometimes when you win, you also lose…
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.
Here’s the info – just try finding it online via Google. It’s hard.
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:
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…
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?
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.
Here’s an interesting contrast. The local is jaywalking on the far side of the intersection, and he’s made it most of the way across, and plus he’s running.
Compare that with the Airbnb-type tourists, who, in this case, were on the near side of the intersection, and had not made it most of the way across when their light turned red and, of course, were not running: