The backers of a ballot initiative to restrict Airbnb’s operations in San Francisco have withdrawn their proposed measure despite having claimed to have gathered over six thousand more signatures than necessary to qualify their measure for this November’s ballot.

The proposal’s backers “will instead work through the legislative process,” according to the Chronicle, and will likely piggyback off the efforts of Supervisor Chiu.  That being said, the campaign could still submit the already collected signatures by November 24 to qualify their measure for the November 2015 ballot if they don’t like how the legislative process proceeds.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Jimmy The House Flipper

    Looks like the right people were able to rea$on with them after all.

  2. Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

    That was the hotel industry proposal, right? This was such a self-serving ballot.

    Jimmy, I assume you are thinking they got something in return for removing their initiative, right?

  3. Posted by David

    The legislation is going to become a sh!tshow for Chui, and Campos is certain to capitalize on it (or communize).

  4. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    I believe that this initiative would have expanded the legality of AirBNB rentals, not restricted it. At present, essentially all rentals of <30 days are illegal and subject violators to imprisonment. The initiative would have allowed some AirBNB rentals

    • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

      But made it so that people couldn’t hide behind airbnb for breaking the rules (like their rental lease agreement, or HOA rules, to name 2 obvious ones).

  5. Posted by 4oceans

    What about the people who actually live in SF and have to cope with these house motels? I’ve got them on both sides and my block sure doesn’t have the old cozy community feel it once did. Just saying….

    • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

      If the hosts are tenants, all you need is give a quick call to their respective landlords. They’ll be happy to take care of that problem for you…
      If the hosts are landlords, that’s another question. The authorities have to get involved.

  6. Posted by Keepitup

    DOA!!!!!! So the three amigos finally stuck their fingers in the air and figured out that this new generation of SFers likes the idea of a sharing economy. Didn’t take very long to figure out it’s not worth loosing 1/4 million over…..ahaa boys, ouch. Heck if Calvin was really serious about changing the status quo he could easily just refied his Haight mansion and pulled out some of that equity to finance this garbage. But alas no, got to keep that retirement package in tact.

    And Chui has gotten the message from the tax collectors office….and lesson from Tim Redmond, i.e. Bay Guardian has been, who has estimated the city could rake in upwards of $24 million in tax revenue annually once AirBNB and company starts collecting the fees from their users. I bet this is the last we hear from Chui on this…….

    Even the tenants union sat on the sidelines on this one. Me thinks the political pendulum is starting to swing towards the more conservative side of the political spectrum in SF……at least one can still hold out hope.

    And given the transient nature of those petition signers, I would bet most signatures get tossed for any 2015 ballot. Hey boys …money well spent.

  7. Posted by Dubocian

    “Sharing economy.” That phrase is such a crock. “Rental economy” would be more accurate. The “sharing economy” is all about money, and maximizing the earning power of assets. (And there’s nothing particularly new, or even left-leaning, about THAT idea.)

    The problem with “sharing” of real property assets is that it makes a mockery of zoning controls and other land use regulations designed to deliver a reasonable quality of life to all. When the apartment next door — or across the hall — becomes a de facto hotel room, there are consequences for all those who live nearby. Some are inconveniences, others potentially impact the health and safety of people who got no say in the decision to change the use of a property (usually illegally, I might add.)

    The elephant in the room is that AirBnB and their competitors are essentially criminal enterprises, encouraging and facilitating owners and renters to break the law and join their scheme in order to pad their wallets. If the “sharing economy” extended to people’s bodies, then there’d be a name for what AirBnB does: a pimp.

    Renters should, in no case, be allowed to do short-term rentals of their homes, regardless of what is or isn’t in their lease. Owners of multiunit apartment buildings or condominium owners probably shouldn’t be allowed to use those units for short-term rentals either, due to the impact and potential impact on long-term residents. I’d probably go along with allowing standalone single family homes to be used in this way, provided they are responsible for transient occupancy taxes and receive the same sort of inspections that other small hotels might receive.

    Hey streetwalkers of the Tenderloin: feel free to use the “sharing economy” defense next time you get picked up for prostitution. It’s apparently a get-out-of-jail-free card.

    • Posted by Jake

      MonkeyParking, another “sharing” service, disabled their app in SF today after being threatened with a lawsuit by the city attorney.

      from a recent sfgate story:

      MonkeyParking, like at least one of the other apps, ParkModo, contends it’s not selling city parking spaces, only information about them, and that the city was improperly trying to apply a “pre-shared economy” law to a “shared economy service.”
      Herrera spokesman Matt Dorsey described that justification as “wildly inventive verbal gymnastics.”
      “Let’s be honest. It’s like a prostitute saying she’s not selling sex — she’s only selling information about her willingness to have sex with you,” Dorsey said. “It’s semantic hair splitting — and it’s absurd.”

  8. Posted by moto mayhem

    dubocian agree 100%

  9. Posted by Keepitup

    The impacts of short term renters are miniscule in the big picture. Condos have CC&R’s to prevent short term renting which protects the value of the community. Nothing stops a tenant, renter, occupant or owner of a housing unit from being a jerk, bad neighbor, pedophile, or any other sort of low life. Dubocian, your argument is a false one. Your using same old mantra of the SF activist and poverty pimps to patriot their universal hatred of anyone who makes a ” profit off of housing”.

    You can’t control the obvious and you hate it when you loose your control over those who want to make a living off of their situation. As for your reference to the prostitutes in the TL…..I believe the act is a consensual one between host and guest. Just like renter and landlord. One pays money to enter the door.

    At least when the host collects the tax the city reaps financial benefits when guest pay the 14% hotel tax. That might be your only argument to hold up when referring to the TL prostitutes vs the sharing economist. Frankly, IMO if the TL prostitutes were given the opportunity to collect a tax and forward it to the city most would do it if left to ply their trade.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *