It sounds like you had a good experience, and this would be a good argument to make to people if you're hoping to get the law changed.
The resistance to this tends to come from people who are concerned about the long term housing stock. It is most profitable to build a studio in your garage and rent it out on airbnb, it is somewhat less profitable to rent it out to a long term tenant, and it's far, far less profitable to build an extra bedroom for a growing family, cause small children don't pay rent and cost you a bundle in child care costs.
Allowing this sort of use would mean that in a bidding war (which is how all property in SF is sold), the people who plan to airbnb part of their house out will hold a huge advantage over someone who is looking for expansion potential for kids. So my take on it is, maybe we should zone some of the SF for single family use. Which, here in SF, we've actually already done.
That's the argument I'd make against allowing unlimited short term rentals in every single corner of SF. I would like to trade my right to engage in short term rentals in exchange for legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either, because I'd much rather have friends for my kids nearby than a neighborhood of short term vacationers.
We can disagree and resolve it at the ballot box, and I understand the problems with 50%+1 legislation. Some people won't like the outcome. So I guess I'd ask if you feel this sort of zoning in some parts of San Francisco (single family housing, no short term rentals) is so unjust that it is an unreasonable law that should (or must) be disregarded?
The resistance to this tends to come from people who are concerned about the long term housing stock. It is most profitable to build a studio in your garage and rent it out on airbnb, it is somewhat less profitable to rent it out to a long term tenant, and it's far, far less profitable to build an extra bedroom for a growing family, cause small children don't pay rent and cost you a bundle in child care costs.
Allowing this sort of use would mean that in a bidding war (which is how all property in SF is sold), the people who plan to airbnb part of their house out will hold a huge advantage over someone who is looking for expansion potential for kids. So my take on it is, maybe we should zone some of the SF for single family use. Which, here in SF, we've actually already done.
That's the argument I'd make against allowing unlimited short term rentals in every single corner of SF. I would like to trade my right to engage in short term rentals in exchange for legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either, because I'd much rather have friends for my kids nearby than a neighborhood of short term vacationers.
We can disagree and resolve it at the ballot box, and I understand the problems with 50%+1 legislation. Some people won't like the outcome. So I guess I'd ask if you feel this sort of zoning in some parts of San Francisco (single family housing, no short term rentals) is so unjust that it is an unreasonable law that should (or must) be disregarded?