True but they basically cut how many people could stay in Barcellona, not how many people could go to Barcellona.
So what will happen, in my opinion, is that people will continue to go to Barcellona, staying in the surroundings to sleep.
So both of the problems they want to solve will be not solved: they will continue to have over-tourism and the houses will not go on the market so the prices will not lower.
I understand the other arguments but I'm confused about this one.
If houses that were used to house tourists are no longer allowed to do so, why would they not become available for either rent or sale?
What else is there for the owners to do with them?
If houses that were used to house tourists are no longer allowed to do so, why would they not become available for either rent or sale?
For rent because, depending on the laws, it can be really hard to get it back in case there is a tenant that do not pay or refuse to leave. In many italian cities there were many houses (they talk about 1/3 of the houses in Milano) that were empty because it was too dangerous to rent them (damages, missing payments, evictions which take years, people that refuse to leave even after the end of the contract). The same reasons make way harder to sell a rented house. So all (or most) of these house went to the short rent market (AirBnB and the likes).
For sale because the owner could keep it in case he need some extra money down the road or his son would need it some years from now or any other reason.
What else is there for the owners to do with them?
Nothing, which is better than to have to (eventually) fight to get the house back from a bad tenants, with all the time and money involved.
I see the point of what Barcellona (and other cities) want to do but the raise of short rents are a consequence, not the cause. True, renting on AirBnB make me more money than a normal rent contract but what people do not understand it that this system would have worked even if it would make me less money than a normal rent because 1) I would be sure to be paid, 2) I would be sure that the tenants would leave at the end of the rent, 3) where would be some sort of (partial) compensation in case of damages and 4) if I ever decide that I now need the house I just need to stop listing on the site and I have the house back.
The Youtube comments sections of documentaries of rent poverty in Spain usually get filled with landlords complaining about how the government is taxing them to death, and how relieving them of such taxes would be the solution. Somehow they consistently get plenty of upvotes.
Bitch, if you were being taxed to death you would rush to try and sell those homes, and THAT'S what I want to see happen.
It is high time governments to start taxing people progressively based on how many properties they own. I have a friend who bought 5-6 properties. That's absolutely disgusting.
Too bad here in America, Land of the Free to pay up or go fuck yourself, this never happen outside of the occasional local town ordinance. The government gets paid taxes either way so they don't care.
Unrelated, why does that city look like it was built in SimCity using mods?
The district you're referring to is called Eixample (literally "extension"), which is a planned district that was built as a large scale construction project in the 19th and 20th century to expand the city and make room for more/more modern apartments.
Good. I own and use an apartment where the majority of the building is short term holiday rentals, and these people flout security, noise ordinance, facilities and are a general nuisance through and through.
Another means I've heard of is limiting apartment/home rentals to a 1 month minimum
Maintains a minimal open door for people who actually wanna get emersed while also redirecting all but the most lucrative properties back into local residential living.
Nah just blanket ban that shit. Residential housing as investment objects need to die asap. If the locals want to become part of the hospitality industry they can open a hotel.
when push comes to shove, local government will either do the right thing (like this), or put their cities on a ticking clock to disaster and implosion. people need places to live. workers need to live where the work is. if only tourists are able to afford to stay in cities, those places will die.
And normal housing is not a hotel. If you have people that rent a room or something and you are there you keep an eye out and make sure they behave. Can you imagine your neighboring house or appartment becoming a party flat with people that don't care how loud they are.
Ok I agree in theory.tyat said I rented a room when younger. In a house that has 2 other older men in the house.
Yeah roommates suck. But I couldn't afford the rent I pay now if they were not there. I was on a month to moth basis for contract and it was a room in a house instead of an apartment means something.
Renting a room isn't that bad, renting nightly is....
I don't know who you think you replied to.. but I agree. More is needed.
This is a good start. Putting hundreds if not thousands of Appartments back on the market for permanent living is good. And at the same time you increase livability in neighborhoods.
Ah, it was mostly to your point that renting out rooms is fine as long as it's supervised/closely looked at. Renting out to tourists is bad in my opinion, flat out. Tourists should be lodged at dedicated buildings (hotels/hostels) and the rest should be for local populace.
Air BnB started for people with a spare room. Cause then it's just small scale and supervised. Or to rent out when you yourself are on vacation.. like home swapping. And I think both are fine if they are the exception.