There is a commonly held view that short-term rentals (such as the ones you might find on platforms like Airbnb) are bad for housing affordability because they take long-term rentals out of the market and they help to drive up property values. And there's evidence for this. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that home-sharing alone might be responsible for about 20% of the average annual rent increases across the US.
Findings like these have encouraged municipalities around the world to put restrictions in place for STRs. But like most policy issues, there are nuances. And the thoughtful answers are rarely as obvious as they may initially seem. This has been part of my complaint around inclusionary zoning. It sounds good when politicians say it: let's just get developers to build us free affordable housing. But again, there are nuances to consider.
Short-term rentals are similar. A recent follow-up study that was again published in Harvard Business Review has actually uncovered some interesting longer-term benefits to STRs.
Using residential permit data, Airbnb listings, and STR policies across the US, the team found that when you look over a longer time horizon, Airbnb listings actually tend to increase the supply of residential housing. On average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings led to a 0.769% increase in permit applications. Supply is of course good for a whole host of reasons, one of which is boosting the local tax base.
Conversely, they found that restricting STRs tended to reduce the supply of new housing and renovations. After new regulations were put in place affecting STRs, Airbnb listings fell on average by about 21% and residential permits fell by 10%.
Restrictions also seem to have a direct impact on the construction of things like accessory dwelling units (laneway and garden suites for us here in Toronto). When analyzing data in and around the borders between jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, the researchers found that areas without STR regulations saw 17% more ADU permit applications compared to the areas that had restrictions.
For the 15 US cities that the team studied, they conservatively estimated that STR restrictions reduced property values by about $2.8 billion and impacted tax revenues by about $40 million per year. Some cities, like Chicago, have also found success using STRs as an economic development strategy in distressed neighborhoods, which would further bolster the tax base.
All of these findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to STR policies is probably merited.
Photo by Andrea Davis on Unsplash
Surface Magazine just republished this 2016 interview with Arne Sorenson. Sorenson was CEO of Marriott, but sadly passed away this week after a battle with pancreatic cancer.
One of the questions he was asked in the interview was about the rise of Airbnb. This is how he responded:
"It’s fascinating. I hope we’re not as exposed to this as the taxi industry is right now. Taxis in many cities are awful and hard to find. So here comes Uber with a better product. In the hotel business, I still think we can deliver better service, so we don’t have quite the same risk. Airbnb is fascinating. Increasingly, it’s less personal, and there are more dedicated units. The more they get into that space, they become a competitor. The story isn’t over, but we’re set up to compete well."
Taxis were awful and that business model is done for good. But how do Sorenson's comments about Airbnb hold up today?
Marriott ended up launching its own home sharing platform in 2019, but it's comparatively small as I understand it. There are also no shortage of bull cases for Airbnb (and just look at its market cap).
But there are also headwinds. Barcelona, for example, is looking to permanently ban people from renting out private rooms on a short-term basis (< 30 days). This is even if the rest of the home remains owner occupied.
So what use cases remain? Only extended stays?
If I look at my own pre-pandemic travel record, I am largely in the hotel camp. I like the consistency and I like certain brands. But maybe that's just me getting older. What do you all think? Leave a comment below.
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed a bill that will levy heavy fines (up to $7,500) on Airbnb hosts who do not abide by local housing regulations.
Hours after, Airbnb filed a federal lawsuit claiming “irreparable harm.”
However, they also proposed a 5 point plan that they hope will make home-sharing work in New York City and then serve as a framework for new legislation.
Here are Airbnb’s 5 points (summarized by me):
One host, one home: Just like it sounds, this would limit people to renting a single home within the five boroughs.
Require registration: State would require short-term rental hosts to register. Airbnb would be authorized to register people on behalf of the state.
Make home-sharing work for all: Landlords would be able to set specific rules for short-term rentals in their buildings and then secure a portion of the revenue for maintenance and so on. (I would imagine that the same could be done by condo corporations.)
Good neighbor rules: Platforms would be required to have dedicated 24/7 hotlines should any neighbor complaints arise as a result of home-sharing.
Taxes to support affordable housing: Airbnb would collect and remit additional taxes on behalf of hosts, which could then be used for things such as affordable housing.
It’s interesting to think about Airbnb’s evolution. It started out as air mattress rentals on the floor and nobody thought it would ever work as a business. Now it’s a huge business and governments everywhere are trying to figure out an appropriate response. Hopefully a suitable middle ground will be found.
How do you feel about Airbnb’s proposed 5 point plan? With this framework, would you be comfortable with Airbnb in your building? I know that many of you are also hosts (some of you do it for a living), so I would be curious to hear your thoughts.