Into thin air

"Shareable housing" is causing apartments to vanish from SF's rental market — yet popular, profitable sites like Airbnb violate local laws


By Steven T. Jones and Parker Yesko

Airbnb is an audacious corporation, particularly in San Francisco, the city where it's headquartered and where its business model works best. This city is tech-savvy and popular with tourists, but hotels here are expensive, while rent-controlled apartments are still affordable, creating a strong incentive to rent those rooms at a profit through Airbnb.

The problem is that its business model is basically illegal. Its users violate five different sections of laws in San Francisco, from planning codes to tax laws to rent control. Disrupting complex regulatory systems developed over decades, Airbnb has managed to unite traditional adversaries against it: both the Hotel Council of San Francisco and the hotel workers of UNITE-HERE Local 2, both the landlords from the San Francisco Apartment Association and the renters from the San Francisco Tenants Union.

But Airbnb and its young founders just don't seem to give a fuck about any of that. Sure, most of its hosts in San Francisco are violating their leases and land use laws, and a string of them have gotten evicted as a result. But Airbnb is rolling in cash, with Forbes now valuing the company in the billions, with a B, thanks to the double-digit percentage it takes from every transaction, low overheard costs, and venture capitalists who can't seem to throw enough money at the company.

When the San Francisco Tax Collector's Office last year held hearings on whether Airbnb and similar companies must collect the city's transient occupancy tax (TOT), the surcharge of up to 16 percent that hotels charge to guests, the company rallied dozens of its local hosts to oppose the taxation and even enlisted the support of Mayor Ed Lee, who shares a financial benefactor with Airbnb: venture capitalist Ron Conway.

It wasn't enough to overcome the clarity of city tax laws and the equity arguments made by the hotels, and the city ruled that Airbnb and/or its hosts are responsible for collecting the TOT. So what did the company do? Nothing. It just kept making money and stiffing the city, and when the Guardian wrote about how it appears to be shirking that annual tax bill of nearly $2 million (see "Airbnb isn't sharing," 3/19/13), the company and its consultants simply refused to answer our calls or questions — then and now, for months.

As this story was going to press, the company did finally send us a prepared statement that was more self-promotional than responsive to our questions, but it included the line, "Airbnb is committed to working with the City on policies that make San Francisco stronger, promote innovation, and ensure the sharing economy continues to grow."

Really, you almost have to admire these guys' chutzpah. Except for the fact that Airbnb and similar companies — VRBO, Roomorama, HomeAway, countless new upstarts, as well the DIY option of Craigslist — are exacerbating the city's housing crisis by taking thousands of apartments off the rental market, driving up rents, and causing evictions in the process.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu stepped in to mediate this mess early this year, trying to create legislation that would legalize and regulate the activities of Airbnb and other so-called "shareable housing" companies. But hopes of introducing something in the spring turned into a goal of midsummer, then by the August recess, and now sometime this fall, hopefully.

In the meantime, the money keeps rolling into Airbnb, complaints against it mount (here and in other big cities), its tax bill goes unpaid, and the landlords and tenants, the hoteliers and the workers, are all left to wonder why the city can't or won't enforce its own laws.



@Guest: You got the “does not work” part almost accurate. In general, Americans do not provide work product that feeds, clothes, houses or that provides support to these necessary functions for America. Too many youth moved into get-rich-quick positions and scams that depreciate currency values to the detriment of us all. Proprietary and other schools continue to turn out more useless MBAs—capitalists and the support occupations that might generate valuable work product, generate superfluous point-and-click capitalist apps!

Posted by Awayneramsey on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 2:20 pm

Coming from an immigrant family who came to this country with literally nothing, I find it nearly impossible to accept your premise. Saving... working hard... adapting - those are the underlying principles of success in this country.

I am sincerely sorry to hear about your lack of belief.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

It sounds like your genetic stock might be degenerating. How did you guys get around or escape the eugenics programs during the 1920's - 1930's; you guys sound like prime candidates.

Posted by Harry Muff on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 2:09 pm
Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this comment. There is an enormous hypocrisy in making laws to limit landlords' ability to determine or raise the rent on their OWN property, while at the same time, allowing tenants to exploit such limitations on their rent, in order to make profits from someone else's property. In this situation, the tenants have become exactly what they often complain about: a de-facto property "owner" who is trying to make as much from their property as they can. Problem is, the tenant doesn't own the property and is probably violating the rental agreement by subletting the apartment or a room in it.

I have no problem with short term rentals: I am a property owner and I have converted most of my rental units (which are not in San Francisco, but elsewhere in the Bay Area) to Airbnb rentals, because I just got sick and tired of the problems I was having with some long-term tenants: the sense of entitlement, the arrogance, the lying, the arguing, the bad attitudes and hostility.

It's my belief that the stronger the "tenant's rights" and rent control laws in any given area, and the more legal hurdles you put up against people being able to do what they want with their own property, the more this will, in the end, work against the tenants. You make things harder and harder for landlords, and the landlords will take more and more rental units off the market.

It's funny to read tenants writing something like they think it is fascist for a city to make laws prohibiting them from renting out their place or a room in their place when they are away,....well if you think it's fascist to prohibit you as a tenant from doing that, imagine how much more fascist it is to try to prohibit the OWNER of the property from doing that!

Though in general I don't approve of tenants renting out their rooms or apartments without getting their landlord's permission first to do so, I do find it funny to see tenants balk against the kinds of restrictions and fascist attitudes that landlords have had to put up with from city laws for many years. Maybe by having more tenants take on this role, we will see tenants develop more empathy for the restrictions that have been put on their landlords.

Posted by No more taxes on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

While I agree that AirBnB is a shystie corporate citizen at best, and a major factor in worsening tha housing crisis in the Bay Area, and at worst, an ongoing crminal enterprise, I fail to see why the fact that one of the founders is a bodybuilder is relevant.

Is this meant to imply that the founder is a self absorbed, meathead jock?

That seems like a cheap shot.

Posted by pete moss on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 7:31 am

Jason Grant Garza here ... wow so the article states "The problem is that its business model is basically illegal. Its users violate five different sections of laws in San Francisco, from planning codes to tax laws to rent control/." Then it goes to state " When the San Francisco Tax Collector's Office last year held hearings on whether Airbnb and similar companies must collect the city's transient occupancy tax (TOT), the surcharge of up to 16 percent that hotels charge to guests, the company rallied dozens of its local hosts to oppose the taxation and even enlisted the support of Mayor Ed Lee, who shares a financial benefactor with Airbnb: venture capitalist Ron Conway." and finally " In the meantime, the money keeps rolling into Airbnb, complaints against it mount (here and in other big cities), its tax bill goes unpaid, and the landlords and tenants, the hoteliers and the workers, are all left to wonder why the city can't or won't enforce its own laws."

I can answer that question ... the city DOES as it wants and does NOT enforce the laws, makes its own interpretation of the LAW and when it wants IGNORES the LAW. Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE ... MEDICAL LAW.

Here you will see the city break medical law (denial of services and access and accommodation) and commit CRIMINAL FRAUD (produce a fraudulent document) to the officers to deny me my rights.

and while that lawbreaking activity is criminal and unforgivable ... so is the LACK of ENFORCEMENT and when I try to point this out to the Sheriff, SFPD, OCC, HRC, MOD and Chief of Police and Police Commission ... what is even more INHUMANE is the DEAD END tactics used to defeat, not correct nor be accountable. Watch the other youtube videos to see the horror and watch the videos when I go again to DPH.

Any more questions as to the LAW ....

What a FARCE ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 7:35 am

We've never said renters have a right to profit from their apartments, but they do have rights under rent control not to be forced from their homes, and the issue here is that Airbnb is undermining rent control.

Posted by Steven T. Jones on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 7:45 am

Renters violating their leases are undermining rent control*

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 8:23 am

most people would say they are merely an intermediary here.

You hardly focus at all on the person profitting from the deal - the host. And when you do, you claim they are landlords violating rent control but rarely mention tenants who do the exact same thing.

It's your sheer bias here that is stunning. Why aren't you actively pushing tenants to pay the TOT instead? Where's the outrage?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 8:48 am

"Merely an intermediary"? Yeah, right, a billion-dollar corporation profiting from illegal behavior isn't "merely" anything; Airbnb itself is a far greater problem than any of its individual hosts. But we do also hope that its hosts read the article and consider the broader implications of their actions because I agree with you that they share the blame. Yet, as I wrote, it's just not realistic for the city to go after thousands of individual violators, it makes far more sense to go to the source of the problem, the company that is enabling and profiting from this behavior while refusing to even pay its taxes. Its audacity is really astounding.

Posted by steven on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

It should be about what is right for the people. Of course it is more effort for the city to collect tax from all the tenants who use AirBnB. so what? The IRS have to pursue millions of individuals as well - so does the FTB. If the city wants the money, they should put in the work, not expect private companies to do their dirty work for them for free.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

reverse cell phone lookup Why don’t bunnies make noise when they have sex?

Because they have cotton balls reverse cell
phone lookup

Posted by reverse cell phone lookup on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 9:27 pm

>"it's just not realistic for the city to go after thousands of individual violators,"

So let me see if I understand the Steven Jones version of reality. If it is too much trouble for the city to go after individual violators then they can just go after whatever is more convenient for them. Taxes are to be paid by those who are easiest to collect from. And then the judge isn't supposed to laugh at that logic when the suit against the city is heard.

The city collects from thousands of violators all the time. That's their job. Get an intern to go through AirBNB listings and find out who has paid the TOT tax. Make it known that they are now going after AirBNB hosts so you better pay up.

And in terms of a company benefiting from illegal activity...guess what? Those prostitutes advertising in the SFBG don't just offer conversation and companionship. Steven T. Jones has had his salary partially funded by illegal activities for years.

His audacity is TRULY astounding. How embarrassing for the once proud Progressive community.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

Maybe you missed the part where tax law makes Airbnb liable for this tax and says the company should be collecting it when it collects the rent. Why would the city ignore the easiest and most effective way to collect this tax from the party that is responsible for collecting it? Your argument makes no sense.

Posted by Steven T. Jones on Aug. 09, 2013 @ 8:15 am

What you refer to as "tax law" is really the opinion of the SF Tax Inspector. And he is hardly like to say anything that isn't in his interest, right?

We will only know if AirBnB are liable when the city actually tries to collect, which so far they have been careful not to do. And only then if a judge approves it.

That's why the city is trying to get some level of voluntary compliance - because the city knows it is on shakey ground. My gut instinct says that an intermediary cannot be held liable in this way,

Posted by Guest on Aug. 09, 2013 @ 8:26 am

@Guest: Landlords and not tenants are required to pay Transient Occupancy Taxes (although they are paid from the tenant rents) in a transient hotel setting wherein some “rooms for hire” are relegated for transient guests for less than 30-days. This was once true for operators of substandard residential hotels in which some rooms were for hire to tourists or transient guests. I do not think the Transient Occupancy Taxes requirement applies to residential apartment operators/owners. The Airbnb issue seems to have begun a dialog on this particular issue. It may happen that if entities such as Airbnb are allowed to continue, then the legal class may begin to form rules prescribing that if the landlord allows a no subtenants breach to an existing lease for profit then the landlord may also be audited for tax evasion resulting from failure to enforce the rules of an existing lease agreement.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 1:26 pm

about that. at the moment, some people clearly think that it does, although a judge hasn't ruled on it yet so nobody knows.

But if TOT is due, then it is the host who should pay it regardless of whether they own the place or rent ir. Although of course if they rent it, they are violating their lease.

Most people I know who act as AirBnB hosts own their home so it's moot. I suspect few of them pay the tax, probably because they do not agree with it.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

So your point is that if someone has a rent controlled apartment and they use AirBNB to turn it into a profit center instead of their home, that they can then lose the rent control privileges they have been abusing?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2013 @ 8:29 am

It is better to hope for forgiveness than ask permission… That is the business model of these “sharable economy” companies, such as AirBnB and Lyft, and also micro-contract labor, such as TaskRabbit. These enterprises exist solely on their ability to swindle suppliers and customers into engaging in illegal, regulation violating, and insufficiently insured service industry transactions. These enablers are consciously conspire to have their participants flaunt laws and assume significant risks, tax exposure and uncompensated expenses. Lyft, AirBnb, TaskRabbit and their cohorts may have been developed by clever utopian engineers, but they are funded with millions in venture capital, most of which is spent on lawyers, lobbyists, and public relations. They conveniently shrug off responsibility for hotel and self-employment taxes; business licenses, zoning restrictions, health department inspections, and similar burdens of establishing and running legitimate businesses. These costs and risk of liability and prosecution are ignorantly or willingly accepted by ill-informed or equally complicit suppliers because many are desperate for any trickle of income from our economy that rewards the already wealthy (investors and serial startup hacks) or to-big-to-jail criminals. Renters of AirBnBs, drivers for Lyft, and task runners for TaskRabbit are never fully informed before they participate as illicit service suppliers in these scams. This is comparable to a mob kingpin using disposable youths to sell drugs on the street. If the enabling high profile companies have immunized themselves against prosecution, and laws continue to be broken, then we must prosecute the end-service providers and cutoff the lifeblood of the parasitic profiteering racketeers. Selective enforcement is not an option, but the system will surely collapse even if a sufficiently publicized few are made to face reality and penalties. Either do that, or level the playing field by eliminating all taxes and regulations for every type of business. Consider my new website going into Beta soon: “”, where thousands of users in major cities will be provided a safe and convenient way to automatically donate suggested dollar amounts to background screened and community rated home lab organic amphetamine suppliers.

Posted by Anon on Aug. 09, 2013 @ 12:15 am

Their mentality is basically something out of the Third World, grind and hustle; the kind of thinking also comes out of brainstorming sessions at Burning Man festivals. I believe that is the place where "utopian" thinkers are handed empty cans of beer at the gate, which are then traded for a goat, which is then traded for... Nothing utopian about it. Elsewhere, you can take a ship load of coffee bean, trade it for so many bars of gold, and trade that for so many tons of cocoa bean. It's all a hustle. In this manner, people who have never acquired any capital of their own are given a way of riding the shirt tails of the success of others, in an unlawful and illegitimate manner.

Posted by Harry Muff on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:24 pm

than almost any place else. That's the reality. What you do about that is another matter, and there will still always be more losers than winners.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:46 pm

@Guest: “Coming from an immigrant” This is currently a political point of argument, in America. Being a successful capitalist of foreign extraction living in America incontrovertibly validates success, universally, and invalidates any argument to the contrary, in the particular sense, whether-or-not one is foreign or citizen. The capitalist jingle, that is, “capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other system,” continues to be extolled from academic lecterns worldwide. However, if 3-billion people out of 7.1-billion people on earth are impoverished, then I do not see a reason to gloat. Further, my experience was not based on a belief system, but adaptation within a system without fundadmentals. This is a man-made system, not a natural system. It originates from the imagination of humans. The format was based on that same big lie, that you too, continue to tout. In 21st Century terms, as I understand this, in America, unmanaged risk-taking is required for a possible opportunity to be viable. Then, this system, neoliberal in nature, will determine who “succeeds” without metrics based on any product, merit, standards or ethics. Something less useful than money-changing.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Aug. 09, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

What would you prefer to capitalism?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 09, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

@Guest: Reply to “what would you prefer to ...” You ask a very preponderant question that I shall answer with the words of one who lived 495-429 bce: “Our administration favors the many instead of the few: This is why it is called a democracy.” (Pericles of Athens, son of Xanthippus) America is not a democracy. It is a corporatist oligarchy.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

want someone to blame for our system, blame yourself and your neighbors.

Posted by anon on Aug. 11, 2013 @ 9:37 pm

Nice try Anon, but a majority is not “the many.” Many vote counter to those who “go with the flow,” so of course, the many are over-ruled. Whose to blame? The majority.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 10:28 am

If you vote, you have some influence.

If you decide not to vote, you have no influence.

So if only 40% bother to vote, then the other 60% do not get counted. And a simple majority of those 40% get to decide what happens.

So basically you sat on your ass, and now you don't like the result. And you expect me to feel sorry for you because . . . ?

Posted by anon on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 10:50 am

You have a tiff, but it is not with me. I vote every election and “the many” is not “the majority.” Ta-ta!

Posted by Awayneramsey on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 8:47 am

ask yourself why you get it wrong so often?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

This article correctly identifies that reduced supply and constant (or growing) demand of housing is the root cause of insanely unaffordable housing here in San Francisco.

But rather than moaning about how AirBnB minimally reduces supply, why not address the real issue around supply which is completely within the city's control; that being changing the ordinances to allow taller, denser apartment buildings.

Seeing the zillions of low-slung, 3-story Victorians drives me crazy. Allow people to build 6-story or 12 story complexes and you'll 2x or 3x the housing supply overnight, which will completely dominate any minuscule effect AirBnB might have on long term rentals.

And don't cry about losing the character of the city. Try visiting the Recoleta section of Buenos Aires some time and tell me their 8 story Victorians aren't as beautiful as ours. We can build taller while still preserving a historic feel to the city.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 12, 2013 @ 11:25 pm

Yeah, that's what we need! Higher population density! Oh, man, I guess you just can never have too many friends? If you don't like the look of Victorians, stay out of the neighborhoods that have Victorians. You can't afford them, anyways. You can't afford to develop the housing you'd like to see, either. It is nice to see that you have a plan for us all, though. BTW, I think you missed a spot; that dish looks greasy.

Posted by Harry Muff on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:29 pm

EITHER, we need to build a lot more housing OR we accept that housing here will not be affordable.

You cannot have it both ways.

So which is more important? The alleged Mediterrean feel of the city? Or working people being able to afford to live here.

Most of us are here for jobs not scenery.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

I think the whole concept of a "shared economy" probably evolved out of a drugged out brainstorming session during "Burning Man" celebrations; a meeting place and informal academy for hustlers the world over.

What happens when your tenant, who cannot afford to buy a place in San Francisco, decides that they can afford to outfit the apartment space that they've been occupying and paying 1990's rent on, in order to charge and receive 2013 rent from a vacationer, or someone on temporary work assignment, or someone who is here apartment hunting?

I guess that is what they would call a "sharing economy", turning tenants into part time, rent gouging landlords; so that more revenue can be generated off of one space. The tenant receiving a larger slice of the investment than the property owner, and for pennies on the dollar. How funny; you can imagine the absentee tenant driving around in a new BMW, even as their landlord struggles to keep up with rising repair costs and property taxes, and stagnant rental returns owing to rent control. And what is the concern: how to prevent landlords from discovering who is doing this if their tenant is required to register what they are up to? How to prevent a tenant, who is illegally subletting, from being lawfully evicted, even as they are perhaps unlawfully charging more in rent, obtained from subtenants, than they are paying to their landlord? Imagine the landlord paying $1 million for a two unit property and one of the tenants investing $10,000 in furnishings, and receiving twice the return, tax free.

Posted by Harry Dog on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:13 pm

without an intermediary, but such middle-men still exist e.g. AirBnB or Expedia. But that's just for people who don't want to do the extra work of finding your own guests and hosts. I use Craigslist to find short-term guests and nobody ever suggests that I should be "registered" or that Craigslist should pay a tax on that.

The real revolution is people doing it for themselves rather than using corporations. The whining here about AirBnB is a red herring - they're just a symptom of the real revolution that is happening.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:40 pm

Craigslist is just an ad that doesn't accept the rental fee don't you understand?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

You could hire someone to answer CL ad's on your behalf if you wanted to, but you do not have to do that.

Either way, the host should be declaring the income and paying taxes on them. The fee that AirBnB charges is less than the tax that SF is claiming is owed, so it is better for the city to go after the tenants who are acting as hosts.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

Whether you are a long term "old" tenant on rent control (which I agree with to a point) who rents airBnB or doesn't sublet at all, you are being subsidized by all the newer renters paying high amounts of rent. The incentive to sublet is heightened when you can make a lot of money from doing so. The more that happens, the more units are taken off the market because what is the point of giving up your apartment? It is a profit center. So then there is less turnover and tighter vacancy rate, and so higher rents all over. A vicious circle!

But this thing here is that an owner owns the unit. If there is a clause for no subletting then there it is. If you do not like the clause, then go buy your own apartment!

So morally it is just fine to rent your room for a profit, so long as you have the permission to do so.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

Actually I think it is perfect and delightful that Airbnb is undermining rent control in that it is helping property owners get more from their own property. Rent control is fascism plain and simple. It is a governmental expropriation of private property. Tenants seem only to appreciate this, amusingly, once they are put into the position of (generally, in violation of their rental agreement) starting to be an airbnb host, and then resenting being told that they are not allowed to rent out "their" apartment or room.
Well, if you as the tenant feel it's fascist for some law to bar you from renting out your own apartment or room, then how much more fascist is it to say that the OWNER of that property cannot do with it exactly as he or she pleases.
Rent control is fascist, it's a partial seizure of private property, it is wrong, and I hope more and more landlords yank their properties off the rental market when they have had enough of rent control. If Airbnb is undermining rent control, then more power to Airbnb for righting this wrong.

I would actually like to see everyone be able to afford their own home, and applaud the "tiny house" movement which I think is another good solution to the housing problem. Instead of trying to expropriate private property to house tenants, a fascist approach, why not change building codes so that more people can build "tiny houses", houses they can afford. Then there would be fewer tenants in general, and more satisfaction with more people owning their own home, if everyone could have a house for $10-20k.

Posted by No more taxes on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

If you are a landlord for any length of time, or even a "master" tenant in an apartment who seeks a series of roommates over the years, you will eventually find that you end up with a problem tenant...and the biggest hassle with a problem tenant, is the hassle that you could potentially have in trying to get them out of your house.

It is likely that it won't be until you yourself are faced with the extremely uncomfortable situation of having someone who lives with you in your own home who is hostile to you, blasting music and refusing to turn it down, yelling at you, or stealing your things, that you will begin to see how absolutely ludicrous it is that you might have to go to court, and go through months of legal proceedings, and possibly a jury trial, for which you have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars, just to get this bully out of your house.

If the person won't move out willingly before the end of their 30- 60- or 90- day notice, the law says you have to go to court to get them out, using a lawsuit. THis is wrong, and not only wrong, but egregiously wrong. IT's one thing to require a court proceeding if you're trying to evict a tenant in a building you own but don't live in. It's quite another if the nightmare tenant is in your face daily in your own house or apartment. Believe me if you've been through such a nightmare once, you may never want another tenant again, particularly if you have an alternative, which is to rent to people for less than 30 days, in which case, they are legally not tenants and do not have tenant's rights, and you need not go to court to get them out if they overstay their paid reservation. You can simply, and quite legally, just lock them out of your house, after you follow certain procedures.

If the draconian anti-landlord laws that exist in places like San Francisco and a few other cities continue to create living nightmares for landlords (generally small-time landlords have it worst because they have much less of a profit margin and much less ability to pay for legal help), the trend will be that more and more landlords will opt for short-term rentals only, and would-be tenants will find that they have to just keep moving around.

In the end, fierce rent control ordinances and draconian anti-landlord laws will ironically mainly hurt the tenants they were designed to protect.

Remove rent control by which the government expropriates private property, remove the huge legal obstacles that can exist in evicting deadbeat tenants or bullies (such as the requirement to go to court or, of all stupidities, have a JURY TRIAL to get someone out of your home who isn't paying rent), get rid of the "tenant's rights agencies" which direct disgruntled tenants to unscrupulous attorneys who are happy to work out their problems with the authority figures in their childhood past by filing fraudulent and malicious lawsuits based on fictions against landlords....remove all this abuse, fascism and malevolence directed against property owners, and you might just create a situation where landlords actually want tenants again.

Posted by No more taxes on Aug. 24, 2013 @ 10:54 pm

Hello Ladies, Please Take A Few Minutes And Enjoy My True Stories About The Wonderful World Of Key Lime Pies As Well As The Magic Of The Most Beautiful And Gorgeous...“Mrs. Anita Pelaez”... Wife Extraordinaire And The Beauty Queen Of The Key Lime Pie World....“Oh”, What An Honor That Must Be....

Elwood Blues Here,

“AAHHH”, Yes, May Each One Of You Enjoy Your Very Own Key Lime Pie Baked by The Lovely And Most Gracious,…Mrs. Anita Pelaez and Her Handsome And Dashing Husband ….The World Famous Deep Sea Underwater Diver And Treasure Explorer And Hunter Extraordinaire Captain Kutchie Pelaez...Together The Proud Owners Of Asheville’s Own ..."Anita And Kutchie Pelaez’s Key Lime Pie Factory And GRILL, Conveniently Located Near The Biltmore House And Estate In That Beautiful City. That's Known As Heaven On Earth Whenever Mrs. Anita Pelaez Is Anywhere Near... “AAHHH",.. The Magic Of Anita Pelaez And Her KEY LIME Pies... Voted The Country’s Favorite Key Lime Pies For The Past 37 Consecutive Years!

…..That Babe Can Bake Me A Pie Anytime She Wants Too.

For You Guys, Listen Up Here!
You’re Ladies On In Extra High Heat Mode "Easily", Just By Seducing Her
With “Anita Pelaez’s”... Ultra-Sexy Key Lime Pies!..You Know The Pies That Her And Her Famous Husband Kutchie Have Been Baking The For Last 40-Years Over At Their Key Lime Pie Factory Near the Biltmore House and Estate In NC.,..Yeah, That’s The Ones, You Dirty Minds! (Shame On You.)

Anita’s World Famous Key Lime Pies Will Light Her Candle And Make
Her Hard To Handle. Guaranteed That She Will Get A-Hold Of You’re Handle Too….Your Boy Elwood Here Says,….”AAHHH”, The Magic Of Anita Pelaez ..And Her Key Lime Pies!

“Yeah”, You’ll Be “AAHHH-ING” Too!…So Put Your Faith In Anita’s Pies.
In Other Words... "Keep The Faith Baby".


Is what they are all saying true about how eating those World Famous Key Lime Pies Baked In The Carolina Mountains By The Former Miss Florida USA And High Fashion And Swimsuit Model …”Mrs. Anita Pelaez”, ….Surely Everyone Has Heard Or Read By Now That Consuming Her Wonderful Key Lime Pies Has The Ability To Cause The Male Penis Length To Increase 50% Or More. And The Girth Of The Erect Male Penis To Increase To Six-Inches AROUND!….”WOW”, And Add To The Fact That Her Pies Have Been Known To Make Males Multiorgasmic /One Orgasm One After Another With Little Or No Reflationary Period In Between Ejaculations Is Nothing Short Of Awesome!. Why, It’s A Miracle If You Ask Me.. "HELL" It's A Miracle If You Don't Ask Me!..Anyway, You Can Count Me In On That,… That’s For Damn Sure!,….Mrs. Anita Pelaez Is Surely The Undisputed Queen Of Key Lime Pies That’s For Sure……

Yes, There Was A Time For Decadent Key Lime Pies. Pies made And Baked With Love And Caring With The Original Family Recipe Just Like Grand-Ma And Grand-Pa Baked Back In The 1920'S In Old Key West. And Do You Know What?....That Time Is Now At…..”Anita and Kutchie Pelaez's" Key Lime Pie Factory And Grille’, Conveniently
Located In Asheville, NC., Near The Biltmore House And Estate….Yes The First Lady Of Key Lime Pies,..”Mrs. Anita Pelaez” Named Her Latest Book..“For You’re Pies Only”.

…Count Us In Darling, Sweetheart, Please Wrap-Us Up A Dozen Pies
To-Go!…We’re Gettin The Band Back Together……………..

I Know That Your Not Going To Believe This When You First Read It.
Don’t Worry, I Didn’t Believe It Either At First. My Dear Wife Insisted
Or As She Said, That She Was Going To Cut Me Off. Now I Like My Nooky As Well As Anybody But When She Starts talking About Cutting Me Off. Well, Lets Just Make A Long Story Short, If You Want To Continue Eating At The (Y), Then You Had Better Listen To What Mama Is Whispering Into Your Ear. Get The Damn Pies, Enjoyed Them With The Little Lady And Die A Happy Man. End Of Story.

People, If You Want To Have A Lot More Sex, And Who Doesn't? Then
You Need To Start Eating A Lot More Of Anita And Kutchie Pelaez’s Key
Lime Pies! They Work Every Darn Time!

…One Eyed Willie…Smooth Willie…Be Good Willie!…Elwood Blues…Darling,..Don’t Go Breaking My Heart!

Honey, What’s the number to the Key Lime Pie Factory?…We’re Out Again!

The World Famous Captain Kutchie Pelaez Of Key West. "Kutcharitaville". Fame Was Recently Spotted Down In Old Town Key West At Sloppy Joe's Bar Partying With His Old Compadres,...Captain Yankee Jack Of The Bull Fame,...Micheal McCloud Of Schooner's Wharf Fame...Captain Tony Tarracino Of His Own Saloon Fame,...Jimmy Buffett Of Margarativille Fame,...Captain Teri Levi Of Lum's Fame,...Missing Was The Late Great Mel Fisher....Also Missing Was The Late Great Treasure Hunter Captain Roger Burleson And The Late Great Roger "Moon Dog" Turner.,..The Famous Group Of Compadres Were Said To Be Drinking Doubles And Causing Just Lots Of Some Mild-Kind Of Troubles, But Nothing The Waitresses Couldn't Handle. It Seems That All Of The Team Mates Were Wearing..."Captain Kutchie T-Shirts!...We Were Wondering Where They Might Have Gotten Those T-Shirts?..."HUMM" You Don't Think It Was From.....?.?.?.........

Kinda Like Captain Kutchie Says... "I Bet You Can't Say Happiness With Out Saying Penis".

I Guess No Key Lime Pie Story Would Be Complete Without Saying,
"AAHHH", The Magic Of Anita Pelaez And Her Key Lime Pies...

You Know-...It's No Wonder That She's America's Sweet Heart!

Posted by GuestMr. Jake Carson on Aug. 25, 2013 @ 5:29 am

I'm honestly just curious here... if someone wants to answer some of these questions... How is this different than the friend of a friend or distant family member who hits you up to crash with you and offers to help out with money for food, utilities, rent, etc? How is this different than the company that buys an apartment and throws it into an LLC for their employees/execs to stay in when they're in town? Why can companies do this but individuals cannot - is this just protecting corporate interests? If a home is owned by a Trust or an LLC, who's the resident and how long can they stay and how often can this person change? If you're temporarily leasing your home for short-term stays, what happens if you only share a bedroom - there's a difference between renting/leasing and sharing - a lease is defined as exclusive possessory(sp?) interest in an entire property for a period of time... you cannot by law "lease" a shared portion of property, right? I'm sure visiting friends, family, and their friends/family (total strangers usually) and delivery/repair persons also create problems? Don't you think that people who use sites like airbnb actually keep their homes cleaner, in better shape, free of pests and grime, and in magazine ready condition than your typical resident? Do you think that additional visitors into a city contribute more to a tax base by spending more of their money? Do you think that some people can afford to rent/own - and enjoy - more expensive and nicer homes through the use of these services? If someone who used to rent a $1200 studio can now rent a $4500 amazing apartment, and only have someone in one of their bedrooms half of the month, and be able to pay all of their rent, food, etc... isn't that a good thing because they could effectively stop working and free up a job for someone else to fill? This type of thing has always, always existed, it's just that there's a better method of connecting people with apartments, cars, tools, meals, sporting goods, clothes, etc., etc. than the old fashioned way - word of mouth. I think no matter your income, this benefits everyone. You're going to have issues with people no matter what.... so don't jump to conclusions... and if issues happen, resolve them. I for one think it's a great thing... and it's what makes great cities even greater... people can stay in a chain hotel or they can experience a real SF house in a real SF neighborhood... the sharing economy is here to stay...

Posted by Ben Bethel on Sep. 06, 2013 @ 10:46 am

It just doesn't get any better than seeing the gorgeous "Mrs. Anita Pelaez" over at her and her husband "Captain Kutchie's" place..Some Folks Also Call Him.."The KutchMan!"....(Anita and Kutchie Pelaez's Key West, Key Lime Pie Factory and Grill)...Just watching the lovely couple baking together all those Yummy Key Lime Pies at their Key Lime Pie Factory and Grill in Asheville. ...It's always worth the trip to visit them in they're Historic Key Lime Pie Factory and Grill...It should be on everyone's bucket list for sure..And The World's Best Key Lime Pies!..YUM-YUM-YUM....."Talk About World Class" What An Understatement!.......AAHHHHH!....The Magic Of The Lovely.."Mrs. Anita Pelaez" And Her Delicious Key Lime Pies, Baked With Pure Love...Always....
....Forty Years Now And They're Still Going Strong,...GOD BLESS THEM ALWAYS!..........
...Enjoy Your Slice Of Paradise Today!...

Posted by "GO Tell It On The Mountain Over The Hills And Everywhere" on Oct. 27, 2013 @ 5:13 am

you're taking the side of multinational hotel chains, the rentier class and one of the most dysfunctional city governments in the country against a startup that lets individuals sublet their apartments. It's a stupefying position.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 1:51 pm

is really a cheap attempt at taking a shot at our popular mayor.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 26, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.