Air BnB

There has been an ongoing "discussion" of sorts regarding Air BnB on Nextdoor of late. Leaving aside the ad hominem attacks that are the hallmark of any discussions among neighbors, I believe that there is a genuine controversy within this discussion that could use some fleshing out.

The fact of the matter, as with so many other matters, is that any policy regarding Air BnB will require trade-offs. Always remember: no matter how it is couched or how good it sounds, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

On the one hand, the Town of Speedway could take a complete "hands off" approach*. The upsides to that include a community affirmation of property rights, i.e. you can do whatever the hell you want with your own property. Also included as an upside is the opportunity for residents of Speedway to turn their own homes into profit centers by renting same out to visitors; it would also provide new customers for the retail businesses on Main Street, most notably the restaurants. These are all good things.

Of course, with the good comes the bad. It's a package deal. While people would be free to use their property as they see fit, that "as they see fit" could (and likely would) entail some pretty annoying stuff. Today that "as they see fit" might be renting to Air B n B travellers; tomorrow that "as they see fit" might be a brothel or CAFO. I would sincerely prefer to keep either of those uses out of my neighborhood. Also, what is the impact on real estate values? It is certainly possible that owning Speedway houses as Air B n B properties would be very profitable, encouraging others to buy such houses in the community. I'm all for my own home increasing in value, but if we're talking about a quick run-up followed by a precipitous crash, thanks but no thanks. Another potential problem would be with the tenants of these homes. Everybody likes visitors until the stereotypical obnoxious tourist shows up, partying all night, parking on people's yards, littering, etc. (If you're thinking of coming to Speedway to trash the place, and there is no 500-mile race going on this weekend, please go elsewhere.)

There are two sides to the "no regulation" coin. There are also two sides to the "full regulation" approach.

Hypothetically, Speedway could still allow Air B n B properties yet regulate them to the gills. This would include such things as posting a bond for each and every time that you rent your home, to cover the possible cost to the town of responding to nuisance or other calls associated with these guests. The town could require that a home be subject to inspection each time a new "renter" signs a new "lease." For the owners of long-term rentals, this would impose a hassle at least once per year. For an Air B n B owner, this would be a hassle as often as a few times per week. If the Town forced the property owner to pay for these inspections, the hassle would also be a financial obligation. There are numerous other ways that the Town could regulate these properties, but they all have their down side.

For starters, as to the bond, enforcing the collection of it would be nearly impossible and the Town would spend more attempting to enforce such collection than it would likely ever recover. Further, there are moral dilemma problems with this: if you've already paid for breaking something that is unbroken, perhaps you are more willing to break that thing. If that thing is our community, I don't want visitors to act as though they've already paid for breaking it. As far as the inspections, this could drum some of the smaller landlords out of business right along with Air B n B houses. It could scare off potential real estate investors that want to develop areas, such as the area north of Crawfordsville Rd. near I-465. Why would you invest in Speedway if the town has shown that it will essentially destroy your investment via regulation?

Anyway, I believe that the discussion is a healthy one for the Town of Speedway. I ask that my neighbors consider the larger issues when they decide where they stand on this issue, and attempt to consider the possible side effects of any purported action. Just because it annoys you does not mean that it is bad for Speedway; just because it lines your own pocket, consider that it may be problematic for your neighbor.

Once again, I find myself returning to the latin phrase: sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.


*I am speaking hypothetically here, of course, because I for one believe that such an approach would violate the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, the takings clause of the 5th Amendment, and the dead letter "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment . . . but that Constitutional law discussion is for another day. Further, these extremes are taken outside of the context of other laws, such as nuisance laws. Today is about policy, not law.