> smsm42: You make it sound as "sharing economy" is inherently lawless idea, which it is not. Of course, in cities like NY and SF, where people with money can buy any regulation they want, eventually entrenched business interests would buy laws that impede any disruption to their business. But that's hardly a fault of somebody who tries to do something new.
Funny. I kind of like that there are laws on the books to prevent my neighbors from operating an unlicensed and uninsured (Airbnb doesn't insure the unit itself, building or grounds, just the personal possessions of the renter) hotel out of the building I call my home... and all the safety, fire, noise, and other risks that go along with it. Just because you personally don't like a law doesn't mean there aren't a majority of us out there that do.
The local government puts taxes on hotels to get money from visitors who don't have a vote. In some cases they put regulations on hotels that limit competition or make them more expensive to operate. Then they have regulations that limit the production of new housing, artificially raising the price by preventing the supply from growing. Then they have to implement rent control to control the damage caused by that, which horribly harms the market as well.
And then all anyone complains about is how their neighbor is doing something they don't like with their own home.
I would like the laws that prevent my neighbor from buying a car better than mine, having a lawn greener than mine and complaining about my dog barking too loudly. It's nice that only thing that is required for any selfish wish to become a law is that there are a bunch of selfish people coming together. As long as you have 50%+1, you can do literally anything to those guys in 50%-1, they're in the minority, so vae victis.
So gather some like-minded people and pass a law. Apparently that's all it takes. Once the law is passed, it's sacred and no moral man can ever object it, because its THE LAW.
This is a waste of my time, I'm sure, but you realize that from the very beginning, the US system of government was set up to avoid that scenario (among others), right? Checks & balances, division of congress, 3 branches of government, etc?
We do have all those wonderful things. However they do not exactly apply to city regulations in SF. Of course, most egregious abuses - like gun laws in DC and Chicago - eventually may get attention of the Supreme Court and even get shut down, but it is a long uphill battle even if the right being restricted is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as one not to be infringed. But the powers of local authorities to regulate local commerce are unlikely to be challenged by either Congress or Supreme Court, so while all those things are nice and useful, I'm not sure how they would help in this particular case.
Funny. I kind of like that there are laws on the books to prevent my neighbors from operating an unlicensed and uninsured (Airbnb doesn't insure the unit itself, building or grounds, just the personal possessions of the renter) hotel out of the building I call my home... and all the safety, fire, noise, and other risks that go along with it. Just because you personally don't like a law doesn't mean there aren't a majority of us out there that do.