• rabber@lemmy.caEnglish
    224·
    7 days ago

    They banned airbnb in victoria bc last year and rent here has actually went down. From this one single change.

    • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
      64·
      7 days ago

      Reducing rent prices was the plan and to be honest, the obvious outcome when demand goes down.

      • rabber@lemmy.caEnglish
        22·
        7 days ago

        You can also buy one of these tiny former airbnb studio condos for like 20k cad down if you are desperate. Good way to enter the market if that’s all you can come up with. They are all sitting on the market and you can lowball.

          • rabber@lemmy.caEnglish
            9·
            6 days ago

            Just go on realtor.ca and look for 0 bedroom 1 bath units

            20k down will get you into a <400k condo that will be like 2/3 the cost of what rent would be

            However I would be concerned it’s a hard sell in 5 years when you want to upgrade. I know a lady who lives happily in 400sqft but I couldn’t.

              • dubble_deee@lemmy.world
                4·
                6 days ago

                In Seattle we call these studio apartments, I learned reading this thread that it’s not a normal thing. My friends that live in one can’t cook without their bed absorbing the smell.

    • bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip
      32·
      7 days ago

      I live in a small CA mountain town that was “the only town open” during COVID, and as such, Airbnb went apeshit. Well the market got oversaturated and now with people trying to offload these properties or rent them out to long term residents , and shocker, rents are coming down (along with home prices). We still have yoyos trying to get $4k/mo for a 2/1 piece of shit because I’m guessing they’re upside down on their mortgage, but those properties have been sitting on the market for at least 6mos. I have zero empathy for the people that bought high and losing their asses because they wanted to make it rich at the expense of our local population.

      • rabber@lemmy.caEnglish
        7·
        6 days ago

        Yeah it freed up entire apartments is what helped. I was able to BUY my own condo due to a slight correction in prices partly thanks to this policy

        I bet someone would have outbid me and made it into an airbnb if not for this policy

    • lad@programming.devEnglish
      1·
      6 days ago

      Was there tourism in Victoria and what happened to it after the ban? I’m not clever enough to predict what exactly the consequences might be, but I was always interested in what could happen from banning all short-term rental (although maybe that’s not the case?)

      • rabber@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        It’s our biggest tourism season in history this summer but that’s thanks to Trump haha

        Don’t think it’s had much effect because we’ve always had hotel capacity for the demand

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        14·
        6 days ago

        I have a pretty good landlord. This isn’t an ACAB situation. The problem is the market, IMO, if not capitalism entirely; even if you got rid of landlords (made it illegal to have tenants), housing prices would still be too high to buy a house. Supply-side or demand-side economics are the only viable solution under capitalism.

        • faythofdragons@slrpnk.netEnglish
          8·
          6 days ago

          Yeah, and there will always be a demand for temporary housing. Even if every person has property, tourists need places to stay, you’d need a place to stay if your house is leveled by a natural disaster, it doesn’t make sense to jump through all the hoops of property ownership if you just want to be closer to mom’s nursing home in her final months, etc.

          The problem isn’t filling that need, it’s making a profit off it.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            1·
            6 days ago

            under capitalism, almost nothing happens without a profit. If you’re so sure the problem isn’t capitalism, please explain to me how exactly you’re imagining things should work.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                1·
                6 days ago

                I said:

                The problem is the market, IMO, if not capitalism entirely

                but it seemed to me that you were disagreeing with my post when you said “the problem is making a profit off it.” I could have misunderstood, and you were agreeing?

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          3·
          6 days ago

          We could still have great property managers without landlords. Then you wouldn’t even need to be thankful that your lord happens to be one of the benevolent ones.

    • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
      15·
      5 days ago

      People who can no longer afford their mortgages would disagree with you.

      Edit: I’ve absolutely no fucking idea why you all think I mean landlords here. You do realise normal people have mortgages right? And if you don’t pay them, the bank take your house and make you homeless?

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        36·
        6 days ago

        People who can no longer afford their mortgages because they suddenly can’t leech of off working people can go fuck themselves.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          13·
          6 days ago

          “There’s a great place to go when you’re broke: to work!”

          • big time landlord and big time conservative asshole (but I repeat myself) Dave Ramsey.

          Luckily all these rugged individual landlords already know exactly where their boot straps are! Right??

          • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
            8·
            6 days ago

            Is he hiring? Is he willing to pay a reasonable living wage?

            If not he should STFU.

            • Zink@programming.dev
              3·
              6 days ago

              reasonable living wage?

              Whoaaaaa hold on there Chairman Adolf Stalin!! Are you asking him to stifle his innovation??

      • withabeard@sh.itjust.works
        13·
        6 days ago

        Ban landlord culture and property prices drop.

        Kinda sucks for those already with a mortgage. Defending rental culture because someone might lose out now only guarantees that an ever increasing majority lose out in the future.

        • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
          6·
          6 days ago

          It’s not just landlords pushing it up.

          The constrained supply, the low interest rates, the greedy banks pushing bigger and bigger mortgages, government “help to buy” schemes which appear to be a way to help people buy homes, but in effect just pushes the price ever higher…

          The centralisation of jobs in certain areas. We have the internet. This could have practically solved the property crisis on it’s own, along with overloaded transport systems and pollution, but rich people were losing too much money, so back to the office, plebs.

          • withabeard@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            3 days ago

            Constrained supply

            But there are empty properties now. There is supply. House prices are too high for all of the property to be affordable. That is because property as an appreciating investment is valuable. You can only live in one house, to buy multiple properties and have that appreciated investment, you are a landlord.

            Low interest rates

            allow you to buy a property. They allow people investing in housing to buy many. It results in the above.

            Banks pushing bigger mortgages

            Sure

            Help to buy

            Allows affordable housing to become an investment. See my first point.

            Rich people were losing to much money

            Yep, some of those people were landlords who were finding city prices dropping.

            Clearly landlord culture isn’t the “only” problem. But fuck me it’s a big part of the issue.

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          2·
          6 days ago

          Yeah it would suck to have my house drop in value while I still owe the bank so much money, but anyone who isn’t willing to suck it up for the obvious greater good is an asshole.

      • BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.net
        14·
        6 days ago

        I and many working people like me can’t afford a mortgage EVER because all of the market is bought up for renting, so they would become just like me, except I’d have a real fucking job

      • InputZero@lemmy.world
        6·
        6 days ago

        So? Then they shouldn’t have gotten real estate to begin with if they can’t afford a house. A person who relies on renting property to make a living are leaches living off the working class.

        • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
          2·
          5 days ago

          You do realise normal people have mortgages, right? I don’t know why everyone has just assumed I’m taking about landlords here…

      • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        Landlording isn’t a real job. It provides no value to society.

        Landlords can change that by simply changing businesses.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 days ago

        what mortgages? shelter must be a right. people shouldn’t be allowed to own other people’s homes. everyone should be provided with housing by paying taxes or being covered by social aid systems.

      • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        “Concerns” like this is why the housing situation will never be fixed. Guess what? Fixing the housing crisis will always means stopping it from being a profitable investment.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
    28·
    6 days ago

    I think it can be generally said that the US and their success stories are a force for the bad in the world.

    • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
      20·
      6 days ago

      All the high profile multi-billion dollar tech companies to arise in the last 15-20 years have been some form or other of using technology to skirt existing regulations and to move the risk and expense onto others.

      PayPal, Uber, Airbnb, DoorDash, you name it, their “innovations” weren’t any kind of innovation in technology, they were innovations in creative ways to make something 5% more convenient at the expense of making it 500% worse all round for everyone.

  • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    11·
    5 days ago

    Get rid of air bnb and similar. It’s caused a ton of problems in Japan as well with people buying whole buildings and pricing out existing tenants. There are legal protections, but most tenants, particularly elderly, don’t know about them and either pay new increased prices by the new landlord or move out. The government enacted laws requiring a minpaku (think lodging/hotel) license and putting maxes on time, but tons of people still run illegal ones.

    A lot of those people seem to be Chinese investors running them off of other sites which has furthered anger and xenophobia against all foreigners. One of the parties that skyrocketed in the most recent election wants to strip property rights from all foreigners and not just investment properties but ALL properties. It’s a reaction to getting priced out and the government not doing shit about it. Granted, there are tons of other problems (prices rising weekly or monthly, wages not keeping up at all with inflation and rising prices, and overtourism more generally), but this is low-hanging fruit.

    As someone who just bought a house last year (on the market for over a year in the countryside with farmland for which I had to interview and get permits to buy and use), and volunteers in his community, this is terrifying to me. I had to go through tons of extra hoops just for being a foreigner to begin with and now, thanks to fuckhead illegal hotel owners and bad policy, now lots of people want to take the one little bit of stability I finally felt.

  • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
    16·
    6 days ago

    Build. More. Homes.

    We used to have enough, and then in the late 70s, early 80s they decided that if they didn’t build enough, then they could make housing scarce and therefore more valuable. A big long-con, 40 years in the making.

    Housebuilders would make more profit per home. Homeowners would have more wealth (even if they can’t access it). Inheritance taxes could take more of a bite. Landlords could charge more. Retirements could be funded entirely by buying 2-3 houses and renting them out, and then cash in later on the full value of those homes when they’d gone up by double the interest rates.

    They don’t have to be amazing homes. They don’t need an acre of land to sit on. They don’t need three bedrooms. Kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, living room. Affordable on a quarter of a single person’s minimum wage income.

      • greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        6 days ago

        I thought investment companies didn’t own that many, but just enough to bump the price too high. Like they influenced the market. Now developers are building in the hopes they get bought by the investment guys.

      • sbrodolino21@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 days ago

        The landlords aren’t doing anything wrong, if the market price is too high you have to increase supply it’s that easy.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          4·
          6 days ago

          They certainly aren’t doing anything unexpected.

          But, the word “wrong” carries an implication of moral judgment, and most people here are gonna disagree with you on that one.

          That is one of the reasons conservatives are so gung-ho on rugged individualism and individual responsibility while being against regulation. In public they get to tell supporters that they are all strong smart boys who can make their own decisions, while also implying that “others” in disadvantaged groups are in their situations due to character flaws and subhuman status. In private they get to ruin the world and apparently prey on children pretty often because the people impose no rules on them.

          Large numbers of individuals are easy for them to manipulate. Written laws and regulations are much less so, even though not impervious.

          Edit to add:

          This whole “they are behaving as expected == they are not doing anything wrong” attitude from the right quickly morphs into “they are a business, not a charity” and other similar sayings.

          That flawed reasoning plus a few more leaps in logic then leads to seeing profitability as an indicator of morality.

          And even THAT infiltrates personal lives. Resting for mental & physical health instead of building a skill or starting a side hustle? Laziness! Wasted hours of your life!

          Spend some time and money on a hobby that brings joy to your life and gives you a reason to exercise? Wasteful! Selfish! Foolish! Just think of what that money could have done in the market h while you chose a better hobby that could scale into something profitable!!

          Whoa whoa hold the fuck up. What do you mean that you intentionally lose money on your hobbies!? What kind of god-fearing red-blooded american just tosses aside the Rules of Acquisition so carelessly?

          • sbrodolino21@lemmy.world
            1·
            6 days ago

            I mean my statement is pretty broad, there might be some landlords somewhere who do things that are either ethically or legally wrong. But in general they aren’t doing either. Landlords are people who invest their money and time in housing and just like any investment they want it to be profitable. If it’s too profitable it’s not their fault, it’s that we have to build more houses, have better transportation and better public housing to ease off pressure on the private market, not kill all landlords.

      • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
        14·
        6 days ago

        You have to realise that landlords aren’t the plague. They’re the buboes. A symptom.

        If you can take your spare money (a concept from days gone by, I know), buy a house for X, rent it out for Y a month, then finally sell it in 20 years for Z, and be 99.99% guaranteed to make more money from it than you can from pretty much any other source, then why wouldn’t you?

        Remove the incentive for that (homes that don’t go up by more than the inflation rate), there will be no need for them to exist.

        But in any case, the size of the building projects required would likely be government level anyway, and they can be the “landlord” for anyone not wanting to buy. This was called council houses in the olden days, before Maggie Thatcher killed that.

        • stinky@redlemmy.comEnglish
          4·
          6 days ago

          one home per person, no homes owned by businesses

          apartment buildings become condos, each unit owned by a person to do with as they please

          woodchip any business owners who fight back against the new regulation

        • Pofski@lemmy.world
          1·
          6 days ago

          While I understand your point, I don’t think I fully agree with it. If house prices are connected to inflation, what is there to stop somebody from buying a house and renting it out. The rent money is used to buy a second house and so on. The price of houses will go up, and so will the rent. But the houses themselves were bought at a lower price, so house prices going up would not have any influence on the landlord. In the meantime the rent keeps going up, reultiyin more profit in the end.

          Now of there would be a taxation based on actual worth of a person. And the amount of taxation is based on the minimal income in a country…

          Maybe a bit farfetched and I do not know if I explain it in a way that I get my idea across.

          • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
            4·
            6 days ago

            If house prices were directly connected to inflation, there would be no issue.

            But they run far above inflation. This is what gets a pack of landlords involved.

            There’s a point where putting your money into a basic stock market tracker gives a better return than landlording. That’s when they go and do that instead. It’s a lot less up front investment, and a lot less risk.

            It’s mostly the spiralling house prices that attracts the landlord class, not the rent. The house is making money even if there’s nobody in it. Rent is just the icing on the cake. Right now they just cannot lose.

        • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
          2·
          6 days ago

          I realize that not all landlords are to blame, just the greedy ones. There are way more of those.

  • brsrklf@jlai.lu
    17·
    6 days ago

    I know at least one city in France taking measures to severely limit Airbnb, because it’s becoming a ghost town and people who actually work there can’t find anywhere to live. The housing situation in the area is terrible.

    Good for them. I already can’t stand “professional” landlords that get into the business of shitting over places people need to live to maximise profit. Those who are taking over those spaces to turn them into fake hotels without the constraints are the lowest of that scum.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      4·
      6 days ago

      Governments let them do it.

      I wonder why we pay taxes to people who actively work against common interests for the benefit of the few.

    • sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml
      37·
      7 days ago

      Since no one is answering seriously, I will try. There is a distinct difference in anarchist philosophy between property and possession which I will try to explain with housing.

      Property is something that is used to oppress people. Which is why anarchist philosophy aims to abolish all property. In this case, housing that is being used for Airbnbs takes a house from someone that could use it to create a home for themselves and their family and instead uses that land and building to make a profit .

      Possession on the other hand would be someone using that land and building to make a home for themselves and their family, not to make a profit but to survive and exist.

      Owning one home for yourself is not a property but a possession but owning multiple homes that you use to make a profit is property. So the anarchist solution to this is to give that Airbnb to someone who could make it into a permanent home, not a short term rental.

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.socialEnglish
        9·
        7 days ago

        And the corporations have spent so much time and money fighting the idea that now anarchists are now associated with terrorists amongst boomers at least.

        • Mavytan@feddit.nl
          3·
          6 days ago

          To be fair, that’s not just due to corporations but also due to the mismatch in meaning between anarchist as a political movement and anarchist as a word from the dictionary. The movement covers only a small portion of what the word covers. Communicating more clearly as a movement can avoid the confusion

            • Mavytan@feddit.nl
              2·
              6 days ago

              Same difference in day to day use.

              The important discussion is often lost due to confusing semantics. Extend it to languages other than English and some don’t even have two separate words. Even in English this problem arises with anarchist (person part of the movement or person who does whatever the fuck they want).

      • baltakatei@sopuli.xyz
        16·
        7 days ago

        This reminds me of the campsite rule but applied globally: “Leave the world a better place than you found it.”

        If your ethos is to own and manage as many housing units as possible, you’re not going to improve them since, paradoxically, leaving the world a better place doesn’t help grow your enterprise. On the other hand, if every housing unit is managed exclusively and only by a single local person who doesn’t split their attention, then that person has a personal incentive to improve their home since they suffer the direct consequences of neglecting their possessions.

        • sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml
          4·
          7 days ago

          Absolutely! And by improving your own home, you are directly improving the community and environment for those around you while others do the same for you.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        3·
        6 days ago

        If property doesn’t exist, you can’t go on vacation though.

        When you leave your house, someone else can just come in and take it for himself.

        You couldn’t even go for a walk. The moment you leave the house you stop “possessing” it.

        • sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml
          6·
          6 days ago

          It is absolutely possible to go on vacation without oppressing or exploiting others. It happens all the time. You can avoid Airbnbs and stay in a hotel, camp, sleep in a car, or just stay home.

          I really don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that you cease possession of something the moment you end physical contact with it. You’re gonna have to walk me through that one if you want to actually argue that point.

          • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 days ago

            If there’s no state to protect your possession, you are the one responsible for protecting it. The moment you lose physical contact, you cannot protect it. Unless you put traps all over your house to deter an invader.

            I don’t see how in a stateless society you could go on vacation without the fear of your home being “stolen” when you return.

            • sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml
              2·
              6 days ago

              That’s where community and mutual aid come in. You have neighbors who also would like to not lose their homes either so they would protect yours like you would protect theirs. The importance and strength of community rises as the power of the state diminishes.

              • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
                2·
                6 days ago

                That sounds like such a stressful life. Having to constantly police not only your property but your neighbours property.

                And that just won’t work when the aggressor is mightier than your local community, which doesn’t sound hard at all. Or if your neighborhood is more friendly towards your aggressor than towards you. Which would also end up in constant drama.

                I don’t like your solution at all.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          6 days ago

          If property doesn’t exist, you can’t go on vacation though.

          We’re getting dangerously close to “under Communism, you will share a toothbrush”

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        Pasting the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article here:

        Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to abolish all institutions that perpetuate authority, coercion, or hierarchy, primarily targeting the state and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. A historically left-wing movement, anarchism is usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

        • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
          24·
          7 days ago

          Nope, try again.

          No kings, no masters. Mutual aid and harmony without authoritarian leadership.

          Kropotkin can explain it better than I can, maybe pick up his book called Mutual Aid.

            • sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml
              24·
              7 days ago

              That is objectively wrong according to most historians and anthropologists. It is propaganda written by those in power to justify their abuse of power. What you are describing is generally seen as sociopathic and antisocial behavior. And this may come as a shock to you, but most people are not sociopaths.

                • sharkfinsoup@lemmy.ml
                  12·
                  7 days ago

                  The whole point of mutual aid is to prevent that though. It organizes people together to stop a small group of people from taking everything.

                  The hard part is getting everyone to participate in mutual aid when we live in a dog eat dog world that was built by the small group of well armed people.

            • chewables@piefed.socialEnglish
              2·
              6 days ago

              yeah, we don’t want the strong taking everything you build. Just bend over and let the rich do it instead, because that’s better for some reason

      • 5too@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        7 days ago

        I believe they specifically asked about anarchy? If they know little about it, what could they have posted that would have been better than what they did post?

        They’re open to a lucky 10,000 moment; don’t drop the ball!

    • ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip
      4·
      6 days ago

      Pardon the confusion. This is Lemmy, anarchism is a utopistic solution where everyone sings kumbaya and gets along, not an apocalyptic hellscape where the people with the most guns amass all power. Fortunately, there has never been a societal experiment to determine what anarchy really is, so no one has to be proven wrong.

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      8·
      7 days ago

      They could live in a home, for staters. Squatting is the crime of living in somebody else’s legal property, but under anarchy, an unused home is being put to use, arguably to do what is was designed for. We don’t necessarily need total anarchy to push the idea that “sometimes the rules are worse than no rules at all”.

    • BigDiction@lemmy.world
      6·
      7 days ago
      1. progressive taxation of properties that are not a primary residence. Rachet up the taxation for each additional property. I think their should be a certain amount of relief for actually maintaining the building and renting to Section 8/affordable housing programs
      2. actually enforce zoning. A short term rental is a hotel business and should require a commercial business license and respect the zoning associated with that type of license

      I fucking hate 2010 venture capital companies like AirBnb and Uber. Flaunt the law in a sexy way, loss lead with the capital to build market share, then crank the price up.

      It’s always bullshit behind a convenient app with great UI

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        Aren’t taxes and zoning non-existent under anarchy?

        If there is no state, there is no one to pay taxes to. And if there is no state, there is no one to make and enforce zoning laws.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        2·
        6 days ago

        Man, if only there were some organisation that were powerful enough to enforce these rules against people who don’t want to follow them.

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      101·
      7 days ago

      Overtourism in Barcelona has meant the locals have been priced out (gentrified) out of their own city.

    • MattBlackAlien@sh.itjust.works
      50·
      7 days ago

      Assuming that you’re asking in good faith - People are frequently evicted from longterm rented accomodation because the landlord can make more profit from AirBNB. This in turn reduces the pool of available housing and drives up rents.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
      36·
      7 days ago

      They could have been renters in the first place.

      Over in my parts we had a big problem of landlords jacking up rent to squeeze tenants out and list the property on Airbnb. I haven’t followed those trends in a while though. I think the turnover/cleaning cycle cut into ROI and discouraged that trend a bit.

      • starchylemming@lemmy.world
        9·
        7 days ago

        completely unrelated to your comment but the post above this one was a few children roleplaying guillotine

        i know. unrelated to this topic, but its pretty neat

        • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
          2·
          7 days ago

          I saw that pic too! Coffee hadn’t kicked in yet and took me a second to realize what was going on. Kids toys are so bland these days.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      34·
      7 days ago

      Literally just happened to my coworker and I’m in America…

      Landlord sold the house to some scumbag Airbnb parasite who then kicked my coworker out. The whole town is turning into this because rich fucks want to come walk around for 3 months of the year… Then it turns into a ghost town because we’ve all been pushed out.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        21·
        7 days ago

        The tourists and techbros wonder why the city isn’t as fun or cool as it used to be. It’s because those people had to leave. Tech bros and corporations created this shit.

    • MicrowavedTea@infosec.pub
      22·
      7 days ago

      The houses were being rented to locals who are now pushed out so the houses can be offered as much more expensive airbnbs.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      8·
      7 days ago

      Property owners realized they can do a long term rental for $2000/month, or short-term rentals for $2000/week. Obviously, they chose the more profitable one. So people who want to live in a place long term, perhaps fueling the local economy and community, get pushed out.

      Then, the places that remain as long term rentals raise the prices because there’s fewer of them competing (assuming they aren’t already forming a cartel)

      Personally I think the state should have a heavier hand in providing housing. It’s too essential to let private forces squeeze it for profit.

  • absquatulate@lemmy.world
    14·
    7 days ago

    This feels like misplaced anger, given that blackstone owns god knows how much of the real estate market ( and have recently been evicting tenants in order to sell, due to the city becoming ‘less hospitable’ ). But hopefully the new anti airbnb measures have some effect.

    • DarkSirrush@lemmy.ca
      23·
      7 days ago

      In Barcelona?

      Not everything is solely an american issue, even (especially) when it comes to US companies.

      • normalexit@lemmy.world
        16·
        7 days ago

        Doing some minimal research, it does appear as if they are trying to take over the world: https://archive.is/ZQBz3

        It’s kind of what they do… I wouldn’t assume safety because of borders or local rules and regulations. Those don’t stand up against billions of dollars and a determined evil company.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        3·
        6 days ago

        Classic Lemmy where someone says “not every is American” in response to an issue that actually does apply to them

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 days ago

      I don’t think it’s misplaced, but even if it’s not the biggest piece in the puzzle(I honestly don’t claim to know) it’s still a valuable piece, one might even say it’s as valuable as an edge of corner piece of the puzzzle

  • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
    10·
    6 days ago

    It never ceases to amaze me how people get get so brainwashed on xenophobia and hating tourists when its their government at fault.

    Edit: Well looks like 18 lemmy users didn’t read the news. Locals in barcelonia were literally harassing tourists with water-guns, instead of actually protesting against their government.

  • Team Teddy@lemmy.world
    11·
    6 days ago

    I’ve never understood the appeal of AirBNBs, letting complete strangers stay at my house sounds like it’d be an absolute NIGHTMARE.