Founded just eight years ago, Airbnb has become a $25 billion company that handles more rooms than any other hospitality entity on the planet. Suffice it to say: people like it.
Also suffice it to say that Airbnb—a textbook “disruptive innovation”—is sending shock waves through the hotel industry and beyond. One such shock wave is Airbnb’s potential to exacerbate the housing affordability crunch in high-priced cities. Advocates fear that short-term rentals (STR) offered through online marketplaces such as Airbnb and VRBO cut into the supply of long-term rentals (LTR), reducing the availability of housing and driving up rents for locals.
It’s a plausible apprehension, and it explains the waves of controversy that have overtaken Airbnb in New York City, San Francisco, Austin, Portland, and Vancouver, BC, among others. This year, the fear has roiled Cascadia’s largest city, Seattle.
In response, the Seattle City Council is considering new restrictions targeted at hosts who use Airbnb or similar services as a sort of mini virtual hotel to manage numerous STR accommodations located anywhere in the city. The key piece of the proposed legislation would prohibit hosts from renting a space for more than 90 days per year if it’s located on a property that is not their primary residence. Policymakers believe that capping the revenue from STRs in this way will encourage owners to offer their off-site units to long-term tenants instead, estimating that it could return 300 units to Seattle’s LTR pool.
The proposal is intuitively appealing. It suggests a way to prioritize local renters over “well-heeled” visitors. Unfortunately, this rush to smack down Airbnb is unwarranted. No one yet knows if Seattle’s housing affordability would get better or worse from the rule. To impose regulations now would be premature at best. The appropriate action is to watch and study.
The meteoric rise in popularity of online STR services speaks for their tremendous value to both hosts and guests. Meanwhile, data confirming any negative impact on housing affordability are lacking.
But more importantly, what policymakers may be missing is that web-based STRs, LTRs, and hotels are each interrelated components of the same citywide housing market, each utilizing the same basic resource: bedrooms. Restricting a specific type of STR will have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of shifting demand to bedrooms elsewhere in the city. It’s like sticking your finger into a balloon: it just bulges out everywhere else. And that’s why regulating away Airbnb units is unlikely to yield any net gain in housing affordability for Seattle.
What we know (and mostly don’t know) about Airbnb’s influence on local housing markets
Anecdotes abound of people taking LTRs off the market and using them for Airbnb instead—or even worse, of premeditated evictions to clear out long-term tenants and make way for more lucrative STR guests. Any reduction in long-term rental supply increases rents, while economic evictions traumatize families and fray the community fabric. In rapidly growing cities, enacting policies that prevent these serious harms would serve public interest, no question.
Whether or not Seattle’s proposed restrictions would achieve the desired outcome, however, is an open question. There is a paucity of non-anecdotal data on the potential relationships between Airbnb and affordability. Without solid data to untangle the complex web of the housing market, we can only speculate about what the proposed regulations would do for net housing supply.
What we do know is that home-sharing services such as Airbnb offer big benefits to both hosts and tenants, including not only monetary value, but also flexibility, choice, convenience, and cultural enrichment. On top of those personal perks, we also know that home-sharing delivers sustainability dividends to the greater community by enabling more flexible and efficient use of existing housing resources.
In Seattle on any given night, more than one in four bedrooms lie empty. Those rooms are heated, plumbed, painted, furnished, and provided with bathroom and kitchen access. Channeling the growing demand for STRs into these unused rooms decreases demand for hotel rooms—and consequently the demand for urban building lots zoned to allow new hotels—and eliminates the carbon footprint associated with building and operating those new hotels.
Hotels are also inherently less flexible because their rooms are designed for a single purpose and not easily converted to LTRs. Houses and apartments, in contrast, tend to be adaptable for either STRs or LTRs.
We also know that housing markets in North America are extremely rigid and inflexible, discouraging all manner of inexpensive housing that could otherwise be helping to ease the affordability squeeze. Cities impose legal barriers to roommates, rooming houses, in-law apartments and backyard cottages, micro-housing, tiny houses, and townhouses, and put far too much land off-limits to anything but single-family houses. Regulating Airbnb ratchets down flexibility in the housing market even more, moving things in the wrong direction for affordability.
But much is still murky about the dynamics of Airbnb. To the point: no one can predict how hosts of off-site STRs will respond to a 90-day rental limit. Some may switch to LTR as policymakers assume. For one counterexample, though, consider the scenario of a family that owns a second home it uses to spend summers in Seattle. That family would never put their home on the LTR market, and with a 90-day restriction the house would then sit empty for six months a year—a waste of resources and a lost opportunity for soaking up demand for short-term accommodations.
Or consider the couple that decides to live together on a trial basis, using Airbnb to generate income from his home and live in hers while they decide whether they’re meant to be together for the long term. He will not put his place on the long-term market, because he may need it soon. The regulation could force them to leave his unit empty, again wasting resources and foreclosing short-term housing options for others.
Similarly, no one knows how often Airbnb catalyzes the conversion of unused rooms or units into new LTRs. The prospect of Airbnb income has inspired countless hosts-to-be to upgrade an underutilized space for STR. Anecdotally, some of them find it a hassle to be inn-keepers—managing an ongoing stream of new tenants, cleaning the linens every few days, and so on—so they switch their spaces to LTR, increasing the supply.
At a larger scale, the expectation of additional income from Airbnb hosting could already be motivating the construction of whole new apartment projects or expanding their size. Likewise, the existence of Airbnb may be encouraging families to rent or buy houses and apartments with fewer bedrooms, knowing that they do not need guest rooms when dozens of neighbors offer rooms through Airbnb. Is Airbnb therefore allowing the whole housing market to slightly downsize its demands, freeing up larger houses and apartments for larger households?
Reporting and enforcement introduce another layer of uncertainty to the cost-benefit equation of restrictions. Monitoring and inspecting thousands of Airbnb units would require significant city resources. Regulations perceived as unfair and unenforceable are routinely flouted in all parts of life, and other cities’ experience suggests Airbnb rules may fall in that category.
In 2015, Portland passed an ordinance requiring STR hosts to get permits for their listings, but less than 10 percent of hosts met the city’s deadline to do so. A similar story played out in San Francisco, and the city recently responded by imposing a $1,000 per day fine on STR websites that offer listings not registered with the city. The need to resort to such draconian measures suggests a policy out of touch with reality.
Seattle’s Airbnb legislation: Let’s do some math
Seattle’s proposed legislation targets “commercial” hosts—those who list multiple whole apartments or houses on Airbnb, as opposed to those who make a bit of extra income off a spare bedroom. To make the distinction, policymakers assume that any STR not located on the property of the host’s primary residence is a commercial listing: “Rentals past the cumulative 90 nights where the operator does not live on site are business ventures and deserve to be regulated and restricted as such.”
To be clear though, “restricted” means hosts are prohibited from renting off-site units more than 90 days per year. The intent is straightforward: if hosts are prevented from earning more than 90 days’ worth of STR income per year, offering the unit as a traditional long-term rental becomes the more lucrative option. How many units might this restriction convert?
Airbnb’s data for Seattle show that only 22 percent of “entire homes” listed are rented out 90 days per year or more, amounting to 630 Airbnb units suitable for LTR that the proposed 90-day restriction would impact. The fraction of those 630 units that hosts would convert to LTR depends not only on the financial equation but also on the hosts’ personal priorities. For some hosts, the value of keeping the unit available for family or personal needs will outweigh the loss of rent income. To assess the financial incentive, Airbnb estimated that 296 of its STRs rent for enough days per year to generate more income that could be earned annually from a LTR, based on current Seattle rents.
Find this article interesting? Support more research like this with a gift!
Six hundred units is less than half of a percent of the total rental units in Seattle, and as Peter Orser, director of the University of Washington’s Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies, noted, it’s unlikely to “make a significant inflationary impact on housing prices.” That said, in the battle against displacement, every additional home matters. However, there are reasons to question whether the proposed restriction would yield even that number of additional LTR units.
The fundamental flaw in the rationale for restrictions is that demand for STRs won’t disappear if the supply of STRs offered through services such as Airbnb is cut back. Where would the unmet demand for STRs go? The prime suspect, of course, is conventional hotels. But here’s the catch: when there is more demand for hotels, more hotels get built. Hotel and apartment developments compete for the same scarce urban land, so more new hotels means fewer new apartments, and fewer apartments means higher rents. If so, then STR restrictions may be a zero-sum game for affordability.
The only reason it wouldn’t be zero-sum is if Airbnb creates its own STR demand—that is, if some Airbnb users would not travel to Seattle if Airbnb didn’t exist. Surprisingly, several studies (here, here , here) have found that the growth of Airbnb has had little impact on hotel revenues, suggesting that Airbnb does in fact expand demand from out-of-town visitors. Because Airbnb tends to offer relatively cheap accommodations, lower-cost hotels are likely to feel any such pinch the most. And it makes sense that Airbnb could entice a handful of casual, low-budget tourists to travel when they otherwise couldn’t afford it.
On the other hand, intense support from both the corporate hotel lobby and hotel worker unions for restrictions on home-sharing platforms is perhaps the best evidence that conventional hotels and Airbnb compete for the same tenants. Why would the hotel industry be making so much noise about Airbnb if it weren’t a threat?
In any case, not all STR tenants are casual, low-budget tourists. According to Airbnb, 31 percent of Seattle guests visited for reasons other than vacation or leisure. Those other reasons include family visits, business, conferences, short-term housing during relocation, and job-seeking—visits that would happen with or without Airbnb. Of the leisure travelers, surely a majority wouldn’t give up their chance to ascend the Space Needle just because they would have to stay at a generic Holiday Inn.
The push-pull competition between new hotel development and new apartment development may not be a pure one-to-one relationship, but the two are strongly coupled. In higher-density areas of Seattle, hotels and apartments are commonly located in close proximity (see the photo above) or even within the same building. In lower-density areas, hotels are less common than apartments, but even if there are locational mismatches, STR demand will find the hotel supply wherever it’s located, just as it did before Airbnb. (This highlights a side benefit of Airbnb: it spreads lodging options throughout the city.)
Hotel and apartment real estate development processes have different risk profiles, timelines, and other quirks, but over the long term, these marginal effects balance out. More hotel demand generated by shutting down Airbnb units will result in fewer apartments, and less hotel demand generated by leaving Airbnb alone will result in more apartments. The magnitude of these effects, like most other questions about Airbnb and housing affordability, remains unknown.
To b or not to Airbnb? That actually shouldn’t be the question.
In cities struggling to maintain housing affordability, the explosive growth of web-based short-term rental services such as Airbnb and VRBO warrants serious consideration. But given the newness of the trends, the lack of data, the relatively small number of housing units at stake, and the uncertainties over how shifts in STR demand would percolate through the whole housing system, enacting new restrictions would seem hasty and premature.
Seattle Times columnist Jon Talton nails it: “Would [the proposed restrictions] deliver on a promise to free up more apartments for long-term leases in a growing city? Maybe at the margins, but unintended consequences occur.”
The efficacy of affordable housing policies hinges on their working in concert with the fundamental reality that demand drives everything. Like Cascadia’s other great cities, Seattle is in the midst of a huge surge in housing demand as its population and incomes swell. Trying to micromanage the duration of people’s stays in different dwellings across a city of hundreds of thousands of homes neither stems this demand nor satisfies it. Because housing and hospitality compete for the same scarce resources—urban land and bedrooms—restricting STRs is like rearranging deck chairs on a ship that has already plowed into the iceberg of the housing shortage.
Seattle would better serve its needs by embracing the spirit of the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda: open up the housing market to more supply and flexibility while steering the resulting growth toward equity and affordability. For STRs, that means simply following HALA’s recommendation (see R.9): a tax on STRs dedicated to affordable housing subsidies.
The real work we must pursue on affordability is putting more new roofs over people’s heads. And if Seattle—and other cities—could successfully address the housing shortage, few people would care one way or the other about Airbnb.
Thanks to senior research associate Margaret Morales, who contributed research to this article.
Your brushing off of the issue of licensing and regulation enforcement is not trivial. The AirBnB people should be held to the same standards as motels and hotels. They should be paying money into the city to support the staffing needs of ensuring that these are substandard and fire hazards. It is inherently unfair to ask the motel/hotel industry to pay licensing and inspection fees while the AirBnB crowd doesn’t. And to be clear, everywhere that AirBnB goes, the number of longer term apartment rentals seems to be effected. Here in Port Townsend, I know a number of people who have been ousted from nice longer term rentals becuase of the owners’ desire to go “airbnb”. It’s seriously affecting lower income housing here.
Kevin in Ballard
Well your anecdotal evidence of displacement is enough for me. I guess that settles it. Thanks for your great contribution of data to this conversation.
The anecdotal evidence aside. it is WRONG. I think the hospitality industry should sue airBNB for encouraging illegal short-term rentals and each municipality should be severely penalized for not clamping down. Period.
As an AirBnB host I collect and pay to the city the hotel motel tax. My apartment is registered as a short term rental.
@ Josh but you are not required to collect a state tax, which all hospitality businesses in your community are.
You are required to collect only a city tax which Airbnb does for you. Local STR businesses are obligated to collect both and always have been!
Exactly, AirBnB hosts are also paying taxes, registered their apartments as a short term rental. So what is Seattle City Council complaining about? Oh, I get it now. They are friends with the Hotel owners.
The bottom line is this-and for some this may be a reductionist response-Airbnb, Uber, lyft… have changed the paradigms… Hotels in NYC ARE NOT HURTING! Airbnb is trying it’s very best to shut down hosts who hog up apartments and hence limiting those apartments to locals.
Bottom line corporations are scared and cannot deal with new paradigms.
Interesting view on life. I guess you can only find business associates and friends of a VERY specific ilk. Good luck, I suppose.
Bottom line, you come into my turf with a non-sense credo or mantra, I will blank you up. Do it legally. Ideology and what YOUR sense of “fairness” does not preclude legality.
sorry. Meant to say, “not substandard and a fire hazard.”
I have an Accessory Dwelling Unit on my residential property in Olympia and have been operating it as an LTR. I looked into AirBnB as an alternative to increase income. I looked at other similar properties in Olympia (even some more desirable ones–waterfront, etc.) offering STR through AirBnB and found that it does not pencil out. Not enough nightly rentals to replace the LTR income. Granted, it’s Olympia, not Seattle, but I doubt STR is going to do much significant damage to the LTR market.
This is true. I manage 46 short term rentals in Seattle and it’s become a hard sell to convince people to rent their properties as a short term rental unless they intend to use it part time as their motivation to do so and only need to offset costs. LTR rents have increased so significantly over the years that it often does not pencil out to make it a short term rental. Our owners almost have motivations other than financial to rent their homes short term. These homes are often second homes. It’s an efficient use of housing that otherwise would sit vacant when the owners weren’t there.
Dan, thanks for listing off many of the different forces at play. It’s absolutley not as simple as affordability advocates have been reflexively arguing. I too look forward to additional data any on these questions.
For a long time, my intuition has been to support the use of idle square footage and the conversion of square footage into livable space. The more atticks and basements we convert the better, at least in the long run.
My greatest concern is that STRs lubricate speculative investment, which is a huge source of rising costs in my neighborhood, where grotesquely large homes and additions are being built at runaway speed. Incomes & wealth are getting leveraged for real-estate investment in ways I struggle to imagine are healthy for our comunities. Data? no, i have none on that. I can see that some additions & lifts include separate entrances and fire escapes, but not many.
I’m also inclined to support parallel safety and surity regs for renters, as well as labor protections for those who care for STRs. Multi-unit STRs should absolutely be treated like hotels, and owner-occupied STRs should comply with a basic set of regs protecting the involved parties.
The article cites data provided by AirBnB. Does anyone think such data is entirely reliable?
Another blatant infringement on property rights. No worries, the way Seattle is going, I’ll have a (not so affordable) house on the market in a few years…. Or perhaps a higher priced home rental.
You don’t like the proposed regulation because ‘there isn’t enough data’ and because, the regulation would be ‘like a finger poking a balloon’ — it bulges out and has unintended consequences. While I look forward to reading the HALA report (thanks for that), my reaction to this piece fell flat for me. You argue that because we don’t have enough data (just anecdotes), then the city has no right to regulate.
They certainly have the right to regulate. They are trying to push these regulations through at break neck speed. I am not sure their motivation to do so. However by ramming them through without taking the time to get unbiased data they do indeed risk some unintended and harmful side effects – one being that the Ronald McDonald house which is in a residential zone but rents nightly would become illegal. And as Tim Burgess himself (who drafted the regulation) “Using science and data to guide government investments and programs is smart government. You’d think that would be obvious and readily accepted. Think again.”
I guess I don’t see an argument that the city has “no right to regulate” in this peice. It’s more an argument about the wisdom/likely consequences of regulation.
Thank you for the thoughtful article, and for pointing out that Airbnb rentals would not necessarily convert to LTR’s. I have a MIL apartment that I rent through Airbnb. I would not consider renting it full time because: I don’t want to live with a full time tenant, but enjoy meeting guests for a few days at a time. I want to have the space free when family and friends visit. There is a kitchenette only, fine for visitors’ short stays, but not adequate for most LTR needs.
How does my rental benefit rather than harm Seattle’s economy? I’m sure many of my guests would not be as likely to travel to Seattle if they were paying over $200/day for hotels. I live in Mt. Baker/ near Columbia City. No hotels here- there is a lot of interest in discovering neighborhoods, but most tourists would not venture here from downtown hotels. Many of my guests are visiting family nearby, and spend money in this neighborhood. But not just this area, they leave behind plenty of shopping bags from businesses around the city. They save money on lodging and spend it elsewhere- money is spread around on multiple businesses rather than blowing the wad on an expensive hotel. The income allows me to keep and maintain my home- a feat getting more difficult by the day for the middle class citizen.
We are an Air BNB host using our large 5 bedroom house to suplement our income a bit. We have a MIL apartment we rent out. Also a single room. Many travelers (especially foriegn) prefer living in a home environment so they can experience American culture and practice their English. Our first guest a year ago booked through Air BnB because he could not find a hotel room in Bellevue. Other guests have wanted LTR because they have been in transition and an extended stay hotel was more expensive. We have LTR guests from 2 weeks to 2 months. It has been a unique and enjoyable experience to host and at tmes make new friends. Government should not over regulate personal choice and free enterprise.
Regarding the connection between the STR and traditional hotel markets, the study linked abound found that:
“In Austin, the city in Texas with the highest Airbnb penetration, we estimate that the impact of Airbnb over the past 5 years is roughly 10% of hotel room revenue.”
It’s hard to imagine how a 10% drop in revenue wouldn’t cool the market for new hotel construction, leaving more land available for apartment development.
I am a host in SE Seattle. My Airbnb hosting income has allowed me to stay in the home I’ve lived in since 1983, to continue to pay four mortgages totally $12,000 per month and created the cash flow that helped me pay property taxes on those properties. I too pay taxes to government entities, city, state and federal. I would not have been able to stay in my home otherwise.
I ended up with too much responsibility when my husband passed away. Operating two spaces and attempting to manage 13 rental units (LTR) is very difficult and while keeping my spaces affordable landlord tenant laws in Seattle are terribly one sided. I agree this legislation was very hasty and consequences poorly thought through, I am glad the council decided to wait.
In my case I have one Airbnb space in my home and one at another property. I may list more spaces, at some point it might make sense to actually establish a hotel.
Thank you for writing this article…, it’s sad that people want data and all that exists is anecdote and therefore being rude is okay… whatever…
I appreciated this article, particularly the point about the alternate reasons why people may be using their off-site properties as STRs vs LTRs. However, I don’t agree with the point about if STRs were regulated more, that that would increase the demand for hotels and compete for lands that might otherwise be apartments, therefore taking away from the development of LTRs. Hotels are a commercial land use and apartments are a residential land use and they aren’t the same. Certainly I agree that the risk profiles are different. But, commercial land use designations are carefully chosen and evaluated as is also the case with multi-family residential buildings. And the locations could be somewhat close by (sometimes) but they aren’t necessarily in the same place. Mixed uses are something to shoot for – for sure, but how a hotel and apartment building contribute to a street, and neighborhood are very different. Land use plans are very clear about vision and what is important for a particular community. Adaptability and flexibiltiy is something to strive for, but like AirBnB, we are not there yet.
Taking away people’s property rights is not the answer. Taxing and regulating these just like a hotel or any business and putting that money into affordable housing programs seems like a proposal that would work (emotion aside).
When did it become a bad thing to encourage outsiders from visiting our communities and stay in safe regulated businesses (which is what STRs should be) and spend money and provide diversity? I really don’t get the ‘airbnb is bad’ argument if they provide safe and regulated and taxes to the community (unless you’re a hotel owner… then i get it…).
Kathy Zzzz Zamsky
I have an Airbnb in my house. If the city charges my guests too much in fees and taxes, I will not rent the apartment in my house for LTR. It would be unfortunate because I make money and my guests come to Seattle and spend money.
Erik Kingston, PCED
Every city is different, and while these considerations might make sense (depending on actual data) in Seattle, the logic doesn’t necessarily extend to smaller destination communities in rural areas. As part of my job I’ve run a housing hotline since 1998, and now the most common call I get starts with, “I’ve been living here for ___ years, and the building was just sold…” or “my landlord is converting units to Airbnb.”
Either way, they are displaced in a regional market with rental vacancy rates under a half percent. Whether they are a single parent or a senior living on SSI, there is a moment of silence after I mention the waiting lists while the reality of commodification sinks in for them.
A home on my block was briefly converted to an STR, but then flipped to an absentee owner (at a 100% markup) after someone broke into the garage and stole everything. Pro tip: Airbnb guests are indistinguishable from burglars to neighbors. Now the home sits empty, the landscaping is dead, and the owner is hoping to sell it again.
Meanwhile, my neighborhood deteriorates while my property taxes have doubled in three years, thanks to STRS and three flipped homes in that time frame. There is zero benefit to long-term residents…unless we decide to sell out and abandon our neighbors before the next crash.
In the past 20 years, I’ve never seen shortages as extreme as they are right now. I now send out the contact information for our statewide suicide prevention hotline, since callers talk about killing themselves as an escape from their despair.
Back in 2016 I led a housing focus team for a community review in a small mountain town, where 72% of the housing stock was either a vacation home or a short-term rental (when I returned to speak at an economic summit six months later the number was over 75% according to the County Assessor). This means public and private employers can’t hire workers and have had to cut hours or services. The Medical Center Director lost a radiologist who was ready to start…because nothing was available. I’ve seen the same story repeated in several dozen rural communities.
See the housing section starting on p. 40 for details. https://tinyurl.com/y7voerwk
Great post with useful information!
visit games.lol for arcade games
This is good
Joshua A. Price
Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a good deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Keep it up.
No one really knows if the new legislation is effective or not. Whether the local renters can afford the price. Right now Airbnb is booming and people are loving the idea and the spaces they have. here