Is it chill to AirBnB my rented apartment?

Congrats, you scored a sweet $500 rent-controlled room in a pre-1970 building on 22nd and Valencia. Now all you have to do is put it up on AirBnB for $150/night, crash at your girlfriend’s place, and join San Francisco’s elite class of weekday-Dolores-Park-hangout-ers, right?

Not so fast. Dave Crow tackled this very question on the latest installment of Tenant Troubles on SFAppeal. Mr. Crow gives an informed and thoughtful answer, per usual, and rants a bit more about endlessly greedy landlords, per usual. Go Dave!

Short answer: if your landlord is willing to give his/her blessing in writing (good luck with that one), then “yes”. Otherwise, you had better hope he doesn’t have a computer with an internet connection. But do read on.

[via SFAppeal, photo via despairbnb]

89 Responses to “Is it chill to AirBnB my rented apartment?”

  1. SFNative says:

    AirBnB is a blight on SF. Here’s hoping all those folks using it to illegally sublet rent stabilized apartments get caught and tossed out.

    • Dizzer says:

      While I don’t agree that Airbnb is a blight on SF, I agree that people who use their rent stabilized apartments illegally (via Airbnb and otherwise) should be caught and punished.

      • Art says:

        Caught and punished how? Breaking a lease isn’t illegal in the criminal sense.

        Allan, your legal summary is only half right. If your lease has a no subleasing clause then you must get your landlord’s permission. If the lease is silent on subleases then you’re free to sublease as you please.

        • Dizzer says:

          Punished=evicted. They lose their cushy living situation and start playing by the rules.

        • why does everyone assume that allan writes every single post? do they not know how to read? or are they just missing the part that says “Posted Aug 8, 2012 at 2:12 pm by Vic Wong”?????

        • GG says:

          While Art’s point is technically correct, almost all leases have anti-subleasing clauses, including the generic forms you can buy (which most small-time landlords use).

          Also, obviously not all “punishment” is done by the criminal justice system… I’m sure most people would consider being evicted from their rent-controlled apartment for material breach of a lease to be pretty substantial punishment.

          • Art says:

            Eh, I’d bet it would be difficult to evict based on a tenant using Air BnB. In SF, the landlord can only evict if the only remaining tenant is an unapproved subtenant. The landlord would have to be right on the ball to start eviction proceedings in the window when the property is rented. It’s not clear that a tenant who subleases for a week with no authorization has materially breached the lease if that tenant is back in possession when the landlord brings the action to evict.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            From the “Just Causes for Eviction”:

            “2. The tenant has violated a term of the rental agreement or lease and has received written notice about this from the landlord and has not corrected the violation;”

            If the landlord finds out about an un-approved subtenant staying there once, issues a warning, then it happens again, I imagine they could legally evict.

            “4. The tenant is using the unit for an illegal purpose;”

            Kind of a legally gray area as to whether subletting your place for profit and not paying taxes on it…

            “7. The only person left in the the unit when the rental agreement expires is a subtenant who has not been approved by the landlord;”

            If you AirBNB your place for 2 weeks and skip town, a landlord might be able to evict. If you rent it out as a long-term airBNB and live somewhere else, then you are totally screwed in this case.

    • Kiarki says:

      No, you’re a blight. And clearly not a native. What in the world are you on about anyway?

  2. Hazbeen says:

    +1. I am a BIG supporter of rent control, but I would wager that these protections are abused by a LOT of renters. I’d liken it to the battle between corporations (landlords) and Unions (renters). Both are corrupt adn abuse their powers, but they are the counter-weight to the other.

    I for one pay far below current market-rate on my one-bedroom. yet, I have enough income to pay substantially more than I am paying. Do I continue to take advantage of rent-control and thus ultimately cause landlords to not spend any more than necessary to repair/improve said property? Or do I offer an extra $500/month just because I can and it will still be below market-rate? It’s a catch-22 for everyone involved. What I would like to see is rent-control laws that allow for adjustments every 10 years with an arbitration board (landlord pays fees) that takes into account your age, income and other qualitative factors and negotiates for a semi-adjusted rate, still below market but not so much it’s obscene. That way economically advantaged people that could afford more do and it would still protect elderly, disabled, and working-class families who can’t afford more. Anyway, that’s my thought for the day…

    • Art says:

      I’m glad you took the time to bash unions, which are nothing like renters who violate their leases.

      • Kiarki says:

        You obviously don’t deal with unions much!

        • Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

          You’re late to the anti-worker bandwagon. If you want to bash the working man, you’re better off finding a thread newer than this one.

    • Ron says:

      This is a good idea – essentially a kind of Means Testing implemented after a certain length of tenancy.

    • Not Bad says:

      I think this is a good starting point, but where you live is a pretty important thing. So what happens if your 10 renegotiation comes up during a recession and you lose your job after the means testing?

      And here’s the thing. You negotiated a price and signed a contract. Just because one side thinks it no longer works is not reason enough to void it. Thats not how contracts work. (Just like corporations negotiating w/ unions- if they fuck themselves over that’s on the Managers, don’t blame the unions.)

      I assume that if you rent at the top of the market that then the tenant can seek redress for paying above market rate if say a gang war breaks out and the neighborhood changes complexion? I’m not sure landlords would like that.

      And finally, the landlord’s property taxes and mortgage were apparent to him/her when the price was set. Everything else is profit. How big a profit you should make is often incumbent on previous decisions. Why should we change laws so that someone can undo a decision?

      So don’t feel guilty, just like when a new unit opens up, the landlord won’t feel bad about gouging that person.

      • Hazbeen says:

        Good points, but the rental contract is for a specified term, usually 1-YR. Once that’s up it’s month to month. So that’s non longer part of the contract as property owners cannot just kick you out after the “term” like they can with commercial leases…Now let me state, I am not a property owner (although I hope to be someday) and a tenant of a wonderful 1-bedroom that I pay $1,300 for in a market where rents are closer to $3K! So I am the happy beneficiary of rent control ;)

      • maharba says:

        Your landlord can raise the rent by a certain percentage each year (changes every year). Our rent just went up $30 per month in our rent-controlled apartment. That seems like enough to me. Your landlord probably hasn’t been taking advantage of that part of the rent control law (good for you). If you want so badly to help them raise your rent you could easily remind them of this.

        • XXKKJJXX says:

          This yearly percentage increase is a pittance usually 0.5-2%. Fair to the renter, but often does not cover increased expenses for the landlord.

          As a long-term renter and brand new homeowner and landlord in SF, I am divided on the issue.

          I wanted a “whole house” fixer-upper in SF, and have only myself and my own finances to pay for it. My only option was to buy a multi-unit place and rent to tenants to help swing my mortgage. I am a nice landlord. :)

          Rent control is needed in SF, no doubt. But it keeps multi-unit housing with controlled tenants undervalued, or unrealistic for regular people to purchase. See that sweet 4-unit fixer-upper for sale? Oh wait, 3 of the tenants are protected and paying $500/month. No one outside of a long-term investor with goads of cash will buy this property as it will be impossible to swing the new property taxes and mortgage. This keeps first-time home buyers out of the market, and makes vacant multi-units subject to massive bidding wars (usually won by contractors), also making it impossible for joe-schmoes like me to buy. What you end up with is further condo-ization of SF (a vacant multi-unit house can be immediately turned into condos without entering the condo-lottery).

          “And finally, the landlord’s property taxes and mortgage were apparent to him/her when the price was set. Everything else is profit.”

          If by profit, you mean just barely scraping by on the mortgage, you are correct.

          “So what happens if your 10 renegotiation comes up during a recession and you lose your job after the means testing?”

          What happens if a landlord loses his/her job? Must they sell their life’s investment to protect the lifestyle of their tenants?

          What we need is a way to keep rent control in place but also make home-buying an attractive investment to regular people, instead of just corporations.

          • YM says:

            You obviously have too much real world experience. I find it easier to subscribe to the “Landlords are greedy and evil” stereotype.

          • Hazbeen says:

            Salient points, I think rent control is 100% needed but we also need to revisit to help home-owners like you (and hopefully one day, me)!

    • Cameron says:

      This is a thoughtful approach to the problem – I don’t think landlords mind a little ‘rent stability’, but it’s painful when your place is renting at 1/3 of market rates. When the situation gets that distorted, then landlords resort to other means of getting their value out of the property (i.e. OMI or Ellis).

      The above approach would be like a safety release valve that would help landlords avoid the temptation of quick money when the market prices have risen so dramatically.

  3. Lillian says:

    You’re giving greedy douchebags ideas with this one. Gotta love that neighborhood gentrification.

  4. dude says:

    Personally, I think it is more of a problem when owners take their properties off the market and turn them into vacation rentals than it is for tenants to sneak an occasional vacationer into their place for a week or so.

    I think it is even less of a problem when (as is often the case in SF due to the type of housing we have) tenants living in multiple-bedroom apartments keep one room empty and rent it out to travelers, who are staying in those rooms while the actual tenants are also living there.

    • thanks says:

      both are shitty. taking entire apartments off the market to turn them into hotel rooms makes it harder for couples and families to find apartments and makes rent more expensive. taking bedrooms in shared houses off the market makes it harder for individuals looking for roommate situations to find apartments and makes rent more expensive.

      these types of situations are a big reason that rent has gone up so quickly in the past couple of years. there would be a housing shortage in SF without these vacation rentals. people who take advantage of this are being dicks to the people they share a community with to make some quick bucks.

  5. Greg says:

    I don’t give a fuck what you do just stay out of my way while you are doing it.

  6. Jim says:

    I don’t see this as a big deal, at all. Landlords in SF, even with rent control, are still livin good. No reason to feel any sympathy toward them.

    • thanks says:

      do you feel any sympathy towards locals who for one reason or another need a new place to live and can’t find one because many of the already scant housing options have been turned into faux-tels?

      • Michael says:

        You can’t force people to be a landlord. Most of the part time rentals were already off the market because many owners don’t want to be involved with SF’s rental “market”.

        • thanks says:

          that’s a convenient lie. does anyone really believe that rental units in one of the most expensive cities on earth are just sitting empty because the owners don’t want to deal with the hassle of collecting checks? how many unused, vacant apartments do you know of in the Mission?

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            There are an estimated 10,000+ rental units which are intentionally kept vacant:


            “Mr. Karnilowicz estimated that 5 percent of the city’s 212,000 rental units (about 10,600) are kept vacant by landlords who would rather not deal with rent control (others estimate the number is higher, about 25,000 units). He said that many owners would rent those homes if there were reforms, like requiring the rich to pay full market value.”

          • Michael says:

            Generally they are ‘in-law’ units, flats, or cottages within owner-occupied buildings. They are typically used for families, friends and sometimes home-based businesses. For owners in this situation, it’s really not worth the hassle of having a long term tenant.

          • thanks says:

            estimated by the leader of an anti-rent control group who provides no source for his numbers . . . i ask again, do you know of any intentionally vacant apartments in the mission? do you like near one? know of one? share the address it’d be interesting to see this.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            “estimated by the leader of an anti-rent control group who provides no source for his numbers . . . i ask again, do you know of any intentionally vacant apartments in the mission? do you like near one? know of one? share the address it’d be interesting to see this.”

            Good point, but I would like to know exactly how any of us would “know” of an empty rental unit, other than having it be in our building. It’s not public knowledge.

            One huge reason that landlords keep their rentals vacant has to do with if they ever intend on selling their property. A unit in the multi-unit house I just bought was kept vacant for 5 years for this very reason.

            If you ever want to sell the place, and can make the mortgage without a tenant, you can absolutely make more money on the sale of a vacant multi-unit than a property with permanent rent-controlled tenants.

          • thanks says:

            i dunno, i’ve never seen it myself in any populated area of SF . . . maybe these empty apartments exist in Visitacion Valley or Lake Merced, places where rent is a little lower and there isn’t so much demand. i’ve met numerous tourists staying at dedicated Air B’nB apts in prime Mission spots, these are apartments that would easily bring in 2-4k a month, i can’t imagine the owners leaving them vacant if they didn’t have the option of renting them out as hotels.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            Do a quick search on SF MLS ( for 2-4 and 5+ multi-unit houses in the 94110. Read the descriptions of the properties. I just found 17 vacant units. And these are only places that are actively for sale.

            Multi-unit places with all protected tenants do not sell well. Look at the ones that have been on the market forever, I guarantee they all have at least one protected tenant or are have no vacant units.

            Another reason landlords keep units vacant is to wait out rent-controlled tenants so that they can condo-convert when the units are all empty.

          • thanks says:

            that’s true, but i suspect these are vacant precisely because the owner wants to sell them. i imagine at some point in the past the owner had tenants in them to help them pay for or possibly cover the mortgage. if they were wealthy enough to let it sit vacant for years because they didn’t want to bother with the headache of tenants, then good for them, but i don’t imagine it’s very commonplace.

      • Jam says:

        The real reason most people can’t find a place to live around here is because 1 bedroom apartments average over $2000. Not because some people use AirBnB.

        • thanks says:

          what do you think drives the price of housing?

          some basic economics: supply and demand

          when supply is high enough to meet demand (enough apartments for everyone who wants one) prices are relatively low. but when demand is higher than supply (more people need apartments than are available) prices go up. so what do you think will happen to prices when hundreds of apartments are taken off the market and converted into hotel rooms (supply going down while demand stays the same)?

          • Michael says:

            It’s definitely a supply problem. We need to build more housing. Why are there so many vacant lots on South Van Ness?

    • XXKKJJXX says:

      How many landlords do you personally know? You act as if they all have yachts.

      Many landlords, if they were to lose their day-jobs would be forced to sell off their life’s investment to protect the lifestyle of a tenant who is paying under-market rent and maybe even turning a profit by putting their place on AirBNB.

      • Hazbeen says:


      • Ken says:

        I find it hard to believe that the law enables highly paid Google/Apple/Twitter employees to receive affordable housing benefits (Rent Control).

        • XXKKJJXX says:

          Well, rent control has got to apply to everyone, otherwise there would be too many ways to get around it.

          You want to set a wage-limit on rent control such that it doesnt apply to Google/etc ppl?

          You’ve just handed a golden ticket to landlords. They will only start renting to people who made more than that wage, forcing even more low-income earners out of the housing market. The other option being telling the landlord that legally, they must rent to only lower-income dwellers. Good luck with that.

        • JS says:

          My apartment is enabled by the rent control situation. The 3 of us all work in in the tech industry you speak of, and our total income is a over $300,000. We also have rent control, which has capped our rent at a very below market rate. We are certainly taking advantage of the law.

          Another apartment opened up in our building and they get to pay nearly market rate. I also suspect the landlord used race as a factor in finding the new tenants.

          • Hazbeen says:

            Yup. This is the situation I am luckily confronting. I make enough to pay market-rate or close to it, yet am paying half (or a third) in some cases what market-rate should be. When I moved in back in ’98 it was the ‘hood and yet due to dot com v1.0 I had to split a 1-bedroom with a friend. Eventually I graduated college, got better jobs and took over the whole apt myself. Fast forward to today and I am sitting on a hell of a deal that others without my income level should have access to…

      • Jam says:

        I lived in a run down, rent controlled building for years on Folsom St.with many long term tenants and my landlord was extremely rich. Unless always being on vacation, owning a big house in Marin and driving a 65K Mercedes is just getting by.

      • thanks says:

        these are people who are wealthy enough to have their own home and buy a second as an investment. they are already turning a profit by buying a home which they will sell later at a much higher price. if you can’t afford a second investment property, then you can always sell it to one of the many people around here who want to buy a home and live in it.

        • XXKKJJXX says:

          Hmm. Well, I happen to barely swing my mortgage and live in my house and rent out the other unit. There are lots of ppl in my situation, though we are dwindling due to the uber-rich and contractors swiping up all the available housing.

          • thanks says:

            but you chose to buy 2 units instead of 1, you could always sell it and buy a smaller place for yourself, no?

          • Michael says:

            The Laws of Unintended Consequences.

            The only people who have to contend with the downsides are the ones the laws are supposedly protecting. At least it gets politicians elected. LOL

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            “but you chose to buy 2 units instead of 1, you could always sell it and buy a smaller place for yourself, no?”

            If you must know, I don’t want a condo or a TIC. They are not good investments. As for a single-family home, I cannot afford it without having zero income for other life stuff.

            I don’t understand why you are advocating me selling my house? I make the mortgage, have happy tenants and have a fixer-upper which is a solid investment. Not sure what point you are trying to make, considering this part of the thread started with the stereotype that all landlords are rich scumbags who deserve no sympathy when their tenants break their lease agreements.

          • thanks says:

            my only point is that landlords are people rich enough to have two homes, renters are mostly people who can’t afford one, there is a big economic wedge between the two. which is why i don’t think renters are too sympathetic to landlords who are having money woes with their investment property.

          • GG says:

            *CAN put up with. Ugh, sorry.

      • Not Bad says:

        Or they could borrow against their property while looking for new sources of income. Yes they would have to incur debt, but that is at least an option.

        But I generally agree- the dichotomy shouldn’t be landlord bad tenant precious.

        But let’s not pretend that the power dynamic is not heavily in favor of the person with the million dollar asset.

  7. Why do lawyers wear neckties? says:

    A lawyer accusing a landlord of being in a “dishonorable profession?” nyuk nyuk nyuk

    Is it worth gambling a lifetime of sweet rent controlled living to pay for a vacation beyond one’s means? This is more of philosophical question than a legal one because the legal answer is pretty obvious.

  8. Mike says:

    I do this for occasional long weekends out of town, and it works great. I wouldn’t consider making a habit out of it.

    • thanks says:

      this is the idea, this is the way it’s supposed to work, travelers helping each other out when they aren’t using their apartments. the problem comes from people who turn their apartments or rooms into full-time hotel rooms.

      • GG says:

        As a traveller, I love Airbnb, but everywhere I’ve stayed/considered has clearly been a full-time Airbnb rental (meticulously decorated, hotel-style, with no personal effects) and not someone’s home that they happen to be away from. I think it’s not unreasonable to assume that’s the case in SF as well.

        • XXKKJJXX says:

          The people who irk me are renters who are paying controlled rents in multi-bedroom houses and using the other bedrooms as full-time AirBNB rentals.

          They are MAKING money off of someone else’s investment as well contributing to the dearth of available housing in SF and subverting rent-control.

          • thanks says:

            but landlords who subvert rent control by only renting their apartments as hotels and not taking on tenants are a-ok? you can’t have it both ways, it sucks for everyone.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            I’m not asking to have it both ways. Let me be clear: I DO NOT think landlords should be allowed to AirBNB their rentals. I don’t think I’ve spoken in support of this at any point in this thread. I think landlords and tenants who do this are shitheads and fuck it up for everyone.

          • thanks says:

            well then we are on the same page. i had read that as one person doing it irking you over another. whether it’s the landlord or the renter making a quick buck, renters who need a place to live lose out. in a place like this with a documented housing shortage the city should have rules to keep residential homes from becoming commercial spaces.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            I’m not sure how they’re going to stop the practice on either ends of the spectrum. You would either need to ban places like AirBNB from operating in rent-controlled areas or have some sort of massive oversight of everyone’s properties. I am in favor of the former.

          • thanks says:

            well if they made rules against it i think it’d be pretty easy to catch the offenders by just logging onto the Air b’n'b site. you’ll probably still have people taking their chances on craigslist and whatnot, but i think airbnb encourages a lot of people who would normally not be renting out their homes this way.

          • Michael says:

            Nice s*head generalization XXKKJJXX

            I say let the owners do it and let the tenants do it (if it’s in their lease).

            One example that comes to mind: Visiting families who want to stay close to whom they’re visiting now have that option – particularly newly minted grandparents. I love that.

            As for the supply problem: Build more housing.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            I think a better idea would be to have people register their properties in order to use AirBNB. This way, you would have to be the OWNER of the property to be able to rent it out, and if the building is zoned as multi-unit and rent-controlled, the site would not allow you to register it. This would also take care of the current taxes loophole.

          • XXKKJJXX says:

            The shithead comment was reserved for renters who make a bedroom a permanent AirBNB money-maker and landlords who take units off the market to do the same. Both are subverting rent control and contributing to the housing shortage. You wanna build more houses, go for it, whats to stop the owners from making every new unit a vacation rental?

          • GG says:

            To Michael’s comment, I’m unclear on how this justifies Airbnb misuse? “Visiting families who want to stay close to whom they’re visiting now have that option – particularly newly minted grandparents. I love that.” (1) Stay in a hotel. (2) If there’s not a hotel near you, stay in a legit neighborhood BnB that’s paying hotel tax. (3) Stay with the people you are visiting.

          • GG says:

            One point I did want to make to XKJK’s comment (without necessarily disagreeing with the spirit), is that someone in a multi-bedroom house putting a spare bedroom via Airbnb isn’t necessarily taking a long-term rental bedroom off the market. Personally I live in a 2bd/2ba apartment and wouldn’t want the potential stress/demands of a “real” housemate, but have rented out the bedroom to short-term rentals (I can’t put up with anybody’s BS if I know they’re going to leave in a couple of months!). So it’s not necessarily a 1:1 tradeoff.

          • pocal says:

            @thanks – I own a vacant rental unit in the Castro. You can come over and see it if you want.

            I used to have a tenant, never again. I use the space as my office and for occasionally hosting family and friends instead.

            Yes, I lose money each year, but not nearly as much it costs to get a bad tenant who can game the city’s punitive rent control laws.

            And no, I am not wealthy. I do all right, but I still go to a desk job every day.

            And no, I am not opposed to all rent control, but the SFs laws are just absurd.

          • Jennifer says:

            I totally agree with you.

            My building of all rent-controlled units has become a virtual hotel filled with luggage-wheeling transients who don’t respect other tenants, completely tie up our small laundry – but “OH! WHAT’S THE HARM??”


            Well, because our common areas are trashed, AirBNB refuses any liability, my safety is at risk because the only background check is will the “host” accept the payment he asks and the amenities the “host” lists mean that I, as a tenant, can’t access them and I actually LIVE here.

            I won’t even get into the macro issue of removing rental stock desperately needed in SF, the billions of hotel tax lost that we residents will have to cough up, the fact that AirBnB has helped push Ellis evictions of seniors, disabled and low income residents 170% higher than it was 2 years ago.

            Well, that is worth it because my AirBnB “host” made more money last month than he pays rent so he can fund his next vacation to Italy or a downpayment for a home or condo.

            Gee, hope I don’t get raped by one of your AirBnB “guests” since AirBnB clearly states that they have zero liability. I think we’ve gone into pretty murky territory and clearly some pretty shady ethics on the part of both “host” and “guest” who uses AirBnB.

            In my view, it’s a pretty crappy way to make a few bucks off other peoples’ backs and letting them absorb the liability and inconvenience, lack of apartment stock and skyrocketing rents – so the “host” can vacation in Italy.

            Please. It’s so parasitic, it sickens me that “hosts” sugar-coat this as the “sharing economy.”

            It’s anything BUT.

  9. eeepeeepeep says:

    This whole Airbnb thing is going to blow up sometime. Funny, I know someone who puts up the apartment he’s renting in the Mission reguarly on airbnb and apparently people will fork over a bunch to stay there. A quick look on airbnb shows a tons of places to stay in the mission… meanwhile the housing market is tight as hell and people can’t even afford to rent here…

  10. D. Jon Moutarde says:

    You know that a thread is seriously troll-ridden when even I won’t contribute to it.

  11. Hazbeen says:

    I like XXKKJJXX’s idea of registering properties. And it is different if the owner of the building is making income off his investment than the tenant who signed a lease and is not abiding by it. The landlord cannot remove tenant just because he can make more doing something else like AirBnb, and the tenant cannot sublease or rent any of the premises without owner’s permission. This is the balance that exists and those (either tenant or landlord) who break either side should face consequences legally or otherwise.

  12. k-mack says:

    gotta say air bnb is the only reason i can afford to 1/ rent in the city 2/ afford to get by 3/ have an art studio 4/ run my own business. ive slept in the bathrooms of my businesses to get by and live the ” work for yourself” dream in a shitty economy and without health insurance, so renting my apt out for a few weekends here and there while i sleep on a couch- feels like a good thing. its made the difference of me barely getting but to actually getting by.

    • Jennifer says:

      The reason you can’t afford your rent is that, in part, AirBnB has helped remove thousands of rental apartments from the market and the tightened inventory has resulted in skyrocketing rents and Ellis evictions.

      You plug in the word “landlord” to “Landlord uses his unit to offset …” and the outraged comments that “A landlord can’t DO that! Her can’t rent on AirBnB and not offer the unit for rental” but that is also what is happening.

      Landlords, rather than renting out their units, are using them as hotel stays at a much more lucrative short-term stay than rent to YOU.

      Tenants who “host” on AirBnB don’t care that the inconvenience of their “guests” who may party into the wee hours, leave doors wide open, commandeer the laundry area (it’s an “amenity” of guest’s stay, dontcha know) trample all over the safety, security and peaceful enjoyment the actual residents would like to have and deserve and pay for.

      Hosts on AirBnB are selfish. It’s all about them. Many make much more than they pay in rent which in turn drives up rental prices even more. They’ll never leave that unit, especially with rent control. It’s their cottage business. They can make money, keep the rental off the market and lo and behold, inventory shrinks again and rents skyrocket (supply and demand).

      And don’t even get me started that AirBnB, in addition to absorbing ZERO liability (wouldn’t my renter’s insurance carrier LOVE to know that muchless absorb the dollar damage) doesn’t pay any hotel tax. Nor do the “hosts.”

      Where do you think those lost tax dollars come from? The people who LIVE here. Except a few of the resident AirBnB “hosts” might have some extra dollars in their pockets to pay for the lost tax revenue –

      ..likely while complaining the MUNI system has old, broken down busses and potholes in the streets.

      Because the tax base has been raped by AirBnB, their “hosts” and their “guests.”

      Think about it and decide whether you want to be part of the problem.. or part of the solution.

      It’s not the “sharing” economy if most people get screwed. And the people who profit are breaking the law- while profiting getting their rent controlled!

      Sickening. Please wake up.

  13. iRentSF says:

    Property is theft.
    Rent is theft.