There's no excuse for AirBNB permitting listings of multiple dwellings in the localities that prohibit it. In order to produce the Federally-mandated 1099K, they have to take the host's SSN and keep it on file. Even if someone uses multiple accounts, they can simple compare the SSN of an account adding a listing and reject the listing is the SSN already has a different listing on file for the locality in question.
I only gave airbnb my SSN because they were very clear that it would only be kept for purposes of producing my 1099K. If that changed (maybe it has? I don't use airbnb any more) then that would be a change of their TOS.
I used to be a big fan of airbnb when it got started in the spirit to support YC companies. Over the last couple of years all my experiences have been crap. I've lost about $1000 in non refundable fees because I've tried to cancel hosts who had almost unlivable places.
The review system is gamed and the whole things feels like a giant scam now. I never use it anymore and back to reliable hotel chains that guarantee some sort of quality.
I did a crazy one week trip last January, every day sleeping somewhere else: Tel Hazor, Tel Megiddo, Beer-Sheva, Avdat - Mitzpe Ramon, Eilat, Petra, Amman, fly home. I do not drive. I do not read or speak any Semitic language. It was quite a trip.
Yikes. Airbnb really needs to deal with abuses such as those. That's just not fair for customers.
I'm interested about why you mention not speaking any Semitic languages. English is pretty-well universally understood there - did you have any problems with language barriers?
> English is pretty-well universally understood there
No, this is absolutely not the case. I was there just over Christmas, and we did have problems to communicate with locals. Sure, the college educated all speak English. They don't work as bus drivers or at the gas station though. But these are the people I interact with the most as a tourist.
That is not to say that people aren't multilingual there. I'm sure they all speak two or three languages. Such as Hebrew, Arabic or Russian.
The inability to read is a major hurdle when trying to mass transit. Having a data connection and bus.co.il helps. Not speaking the language only caused problems in Jordan and even there not much.
I find the anti-AirBnB comments on this site quite confusing, because in most other cases HN seems to be pro-free markets. If a landlord wants to rent their place out to short-term tenants, and tenants want to rent it, and AirBnB want to act as a marketplace, I can't see what the harm is.
You don't have any right to say who comes and goes to your neighbours' properties, any more than they have any right to say who comes and goes to your property.
If you want to decide who gets to stay in a given house, you should buy that house. Otherwise it's none of your business.
" If a landlord wants to rent their place out to short-term tenants, and tenants want to rent it, and AirBnB want to act as a marketplace, I can't see what the harm is."
Have you ever lived next a to unit used for AirBnB? I have. After one incident where 8 college students partied the weekend away non-stop, I finally let the HOA know. They then aggressively enforced the building policy of a 28 day rental minimum.
The solution to that is large HOA fines. They will quickly stop doing AirBnB or make sure the people are quiet. If a bunch of college students or emotional people moved in next door, you would have similar problems.
That's what I meant by "aggressively enforced". I believe our fine is something like $2500 now.
"If a bunch of college students or emotional people moved in next door, you would have similar problems."
The main difference is those are actual tenants bound to the covenants of the housing complex. The issues with your neighbors are tracked and escalated.
The condo unit is still owned by someone. The issue is tracked and escalated with them. The HOA could say that any short term guest is still bound to CC&Rs also without removing something like AirBnB. Even with AirBnB you have to agree to terms before renting.
Not being able to AirBnB your place is frustrating. If you have to go away for a few months due to work or getting fired or similar, it decreases the value of the unit. Most people's houses don't have these restrictions at a municipal level, but still would have to deal with noise complaints.
You don't have any right to say who comes and goes to your neighbours' properties
But you do. You agree to abide by certain rules when you rent/buy and your neighbors have every right to see that the rules you ALL agreed to are followed.
I'm not anti-AirBnB. I'm pro-community. A house is in a neighborhood. An apartment in a shared building. I think we need to make sure we have some rules in place to make sure AirBnB-style sharing is a benefit to everyone and not just a benefit to a few at the expense of everyone else.
> If a landlord wants to rent their place out to short-term tenants, and tenants want to rent it, and AirBnB want to act as a marketplace, I can't see what the harm is.
It's classic tragedy of the commons. Cities that are great to live in and also very attractive for tourists are obviously great places to rent out an apartment over AirBnB in.
But when half the city does that, then the whole character of the place changes and what was previously great about the city is lost. That is harm.
Luckily, cities have the power to regulate this sort of thing.
There are rules for renting out appartments for good reasons. For example, it influences the worth of appartments around it, and it messes up housing costs in a broader area.
Another example of the free market not working outside a very simplistic view.
If a new participant enters a market and that causes changes in pricing, it is not because the new participant has made the market less efficient.
If the new participant was offering a worse deal than the incumbents, nobody would trade with them. It is only because the new participant is offering a better deal than the incumbents that their actions change the market prices. And that's a good thing.
You seem to take the free market as a premise and from there deduce that it is a desirable construct. The point was that the nature of the free market has an undesirable effect on prices.
Quite a good comment. I had never considered that taking the free market as a premise might not be the correct decision.
On further reflection, I still think it is the correct decision.
If someone wants to rent a property more badly than anyone else wants to (i.e. they are willing to pay more) then why shouldn't they get it instead of the others? This will push prices up, but that's a natural effect of allocating scarce resources to whoever wants them most.
I think you have accidentally conflated "whoever wants them most" with whoever is willing and able to pay the most.
I am not sure how you would find out whether I want to live on the street where I grew up more than, for example, a billionaire Russian oligarch, but I think that even if I wanted it one thousand times more I would remain unable to afford it.
It may be that many other people gave the oligarch some money to show that they, in some exchange, had a total want for said oligarch to live there more than my want, but this is a different claim implying a very strong assumption about the addition and fungibility of wants, making them indistinguishable from money itself.
Can you make a good argument for why free market doesn't work here?
I don't feel that ...
>There are rules for renting out appartments for good reasons. For example, it influences the worth of appartments around it, and it messes up housing costs in a broader area.
... is really an useful argument against free market as it fails to explain why either of those are inherently bad things.
Because there are negative externalities to someone constantly renting out their unit for short term stay. In a completely free market, there are no rules to protect the neighbours from these negative externalities.
In the case of multi-family investment properties like a duplex or three family, the externalities are positive.
Investment properties have incentives in place to not spend money on maintenance, not spend on upkeep to the extent the owner can get away with it.
With a vacation rental the incentive is to make it as nice as possible to charge a premium, and the rents support a higher level of finish and polish to a property.
I live right between two short term rentals and people come and go all the time, and I love it. I've met so many cool people, especially from Europe travelling in the US.
The house is kept up much nicer than the other multi families around it.
None of the guests have ever once had a party, made noise, left trash or anything negative.
Which is another form of non free market. It's just whether you want the rules enforced at the level of housing co-operative, community or the state government.
As you move up the levels, the market becomes less free (easier to move to a different apartment block if you don't like the rules than to move to a different state) but becomes far better at protecting against the negative externalities (housing cooperative doesn't have the same enforcement capabilities as local or state governments).
Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do, as I am sure you would insist were they to open a concert venue or dog fighting arena.
> Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do
Why? I have a right to intervene if their behavior affects me (ie. noise) but I certainly don't have a right to decide what my neighbors do.
If my neighbors want to host a swingers' party next door, so long as it's quiet then it's absolutely none of my business. Similarly, if they want to do short-term rentals, so long as noise levels are kept acceptably low I don't see what say I should have in the matter.
If they want to host a swingers party, advertise it on the internet, and charge admission that's an entirely different story.
The idea that Airbnb is "sharing" is cute, but these are commercial transactions we're talking about, specifically short term lodging rentals. This not a free speech or free association issue as long as that's the case.
> Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do, as I am sure you would insist were they to open a concert venue or dog fighting arena.
Noise complaint is a valid argument up to a certain point. Of course, I don't want anyone to have a concert upstairs.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Uber or Airbnb or many of the things they represent. However, we must agree that the ends do not justify the means. This is just one step away from FUD like "Oh, if we have Airbnb we might have {{insert trendy to hate -- black, Hispanic, Arabic, Chinese, Canadian}} people staying over for the weekend next door and who knows what they're going to do to me in my sleep". I think if you subscribe to this idea then we should throw the baby away with the bath water as well. Nobody is allowed to visit anyone in their homes. Absolutely no parties even if you own your home. Only the legal registered occupant may be present at any time (I guess we will add provisions for EMS and law enforcement).
I will agree with you the day I can get a fellow passenger kicked out of a train or an aeroplane for failing to quiet their devil spawn that won't stop wailing for over n hours.
I am not accusing you of malice but please realize that the anti-Airbnb rhetoric is no more of a "grass-roots" movement than the so-called "tea party movement". Yes, there are people with valid concerns. No, they are not the ones driving this train. It appears we share a common goal with "them" but we do not.
I think - hope - we see a crackdown from insurance companies as airbnb-style sharing becomes more common. They should have more data as to accidents/claims/etc. This is part of the 'free market' wrt sharing that hasn't really played out yet. Most people renting out their house are not telling their insurance companies that they're effectively running a business from their home, and this will effect claims/premiums.
A short term rental is residential use, just like a long term rental is residential use. In both cases the property is used by people to live and sleep in.
The question is does local government have the right to regulate the duration of a rental lease?
I would argue it doesn't, and it's a blatant violation of sacred property rights for a government to take that power.
The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew.
There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days.
> The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew.
Because as we know, if there's one easy thing to get, it's "pay later" fine money from tourists. And if there's one thing that really sparks police springing into action, it's an urban noise complaint.
> There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days.
"$500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew" is a regulation - what twisted world is it where something involving the word 'curfew' isn't considered a regulation?
So what are you going to do when tourists can't afford to immediately pay a $500 on-the-spot fine? Drag them off to jail? Are you really willing to jail people over a noise complaint? Your local Chamber of Commerce is going to love that.
> narrowly tailored ... broad
Obviously enforcement of the existing broad regulations isn't working, so we should create new narrowly tailored ones instead.
Thats a nice straw man you created there and then argued against.
Of course we can fine people that live in other jurisdictions as we do with speeding tickets, and no one is dragged off to jail and fines are not collected on the spot.
Speeding tickets are where the government holds all the information on the person. Fining a tourist AirBnBer requires getting a warrant to get information out of a private company. How much effort do you think is going to go into pursuing a noise complaint? If you're not on-the-spot fining, just how many resources do you think the police will throw at pursuing that?
Are you aware also that tourists come from outside the country? Speeding tickets aren't particularly enforceable in that case.
AirBnB has entered into tax collection and information sharning agreements with State governments. Can we not add a system for sharing information for legitimate police noise complaints? I think we can.
I would like to see us come up with creative and tech based solutions for potential problems with vacation rentals, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There are a lot of good coming from vacation rentals, and a lot of people love them.
I am just very much against the idea that if any new thing inconveniences or even potentially inconveniences anyone in even a minor way, we should outright blanket ban it. And that is what the people pushing for punitive bans are saying.
Find solutions. Penalize bad actors. Don't practice group punishment. Screen guests with more and better data. Don't just ban the "other"
> A short term rental is residential use, just like a long term rental is residential use. In both cases the property is used by people to live and sleep in.
Similarly, the Indy 500 is exactly like a parking lot, they're both pieces of pavement with cars on them, only difference is the variation in speed.
In real life your examples are not the same. One is a residential building and one is a hotel. Those things are different.
The United States Conference of Mayors disagrees with you [1]
Short term rentals are residential use from a zoning perspective. A vacation rental is not the same thing as a hotel. There are key differences. A hotel has a front desk and is open 24 hours a day. A vacation rental does not.
There's less incentive on short term renters to respect the people around their rental. This leads to all sorts of bad behaviors.
That said, I think it's a question of "why do we have zoning laws". AirBNB gets to profit from encouraging people to break the law, while the rest of us have to live with the decreased housing supply. If we had fewer restrictions on getting long term supply in place, or more effective restrictions on AirBnBs, I think there'd be fewer complaints. Right now it's super one sided.
Think of it this way: I would like to trade my right to run a hotel out of my house in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either. I should like to have this enforced through a set of rules, in my case zoning laws, that apply to everyone who buys in a particular geographic region. The law should be clear, so that everyone who does buy here knows that the agreement they've entered.
It sounds like you don't believe that residents in a particular neighborhood should be permitted to enter this legally binding arrangement.
This is a deep, fundamental disagreement between us, one that probably goes to the heart of how we perceive the relationship between an individual and the community.
Presumably the market for renting out rooms started out virtually completely free and over the years regulations have been voted in due to problems caused by that free market.
That's not to say that those regulations are all necessary or helpful, but clearly the free market isn't enough in this case.
Same with Uber - it starts as a free-for-all, then you get stories like this:
Seems like a bit reductionist to liken concern/acknowledgement that "free market" dynamics may not necessarily be desirable in every case to support for Soviet-style regulation.
Airbnb has caused increase in local rent by removing the available to-let properties from the market in London. Considering that there is already an increasing wealth-gap problem, it's hard to stomach something that is exacerbating the problem and reducing social-mobility in the name of free-market dynamics.
Highly desirable places also have many second-homes as well. In Hawaii, some neighborhoods are only 20% occupied because most of the owners actually live somewhere else.
I am sure second-homes also drive up prices (In Vancouver they even have a special tax for empty houses).
Making generalizations about HN like this without backing data to support it is unwarranted. There are plenty of diverse views, many of which do not fit nicely in the box you've constructed.
>You don't have any right to say who comes and goes to your neighbours' properties, any more than they have any right to say who comes and goes to your property.
But I do have a say in what types of commerce are allowed to take place in my community, or my country for that matter.
And although I am normally a laissez faire capitalist, I would love to see Airbnb utterly destroyed through lawsuits and over-regulation. Why? For political reasons. The latest tactic of the left is to attack any commercial entity that has the temerity to express any pro-Trump sentiments. And I think the only way for the right to counter that is to employ the exact same tactic, a hundred-fold, against companies who publicly oppose Trump, or political agendas supported by the right. And Airbnb, led by the smug boy-billionaire Brian Chesky, falls squarely in that category.
There are numerous stories[1] of people's lives being turned upside down as a result of using Airbnb. I think televised congressional hearings are called for. And there are probably billions of dollars worth of commerce that are going untaxed as a result of Airbnb. I don't think a few click-through TOS agreements should shield them from responsibility.
As far as politics, you're playing that game of false-equivalence that I thought we'd kind of moved past. Pro- and Anti-Trump aren't just two teams with different uniforms.
Maybe they're not. Maybe one team is totally right and the other one is totally wrong. But we will never agree on which is which. We all have our own political biases and prejudices which prevent any of us from making a sensible judgment on the matter.
And that's why it behooves all of us to act like we're all teams with different uniforms, most of the time, even when we secretly think the other guys are stupid and wrong -- only by tolerating our political differences can we have a workable society.
>As far as politics, you're playing that game of false-equivalence that I thought we'd kind of moved past. Pro- and Anti-Trump aren't just two teams with different uniforms.
I don't even know what that means.
I'm only advocating using the same tactics against the left that they use against the right.
I would love to see Airbnb's $30 billion valuation go all the way down to zero. That won't happen, of course, because even if their business were effectively outlawed in the US, they could still do business abroad. But it would sure wipe the smug off of some left-wing SV billionaires' faces if Airbnb were to become poison to future investors, and derail their eventual IPO.
>Qualities of unhelpful politics (both conservative and liberal):
Whether it's "unhelpful" or not depends on what you're trying to accomplish. I would like to see Airbnb go out of business, and its smug, leftist, billionaire SV investors suffer huge financial losses. I think a parade of tearful witnesses giving testimony to congress about the horrors of their Airbnb experiences would be very helpful to achieving that goal.
My town had a recent dustup over prohibiting AirBnB, some people claimed that it was against zoning regulations, the town attorney and planning and zoning looked into it and decided it was beyond their power to regulate tenure, or the length of a lease.
Short term rentals are considered residential use in my town, and they make up the backbone of the local economy. A public forum was called and almost two hundred locals, many of whom have lived here for decades, spoke in favor.
Only two cranks got up and spoke against. There reasons were all about hypothetical harms and imagined worst case scenarios.
My town is a popular vacation destination for families and weddings. There are about 200 short term rentals and the two opponents were unable to come up with any actual examples of misbehavior, there was not one noise complaint, prostitution, drug use or any other worst case scenarios trotted out against AirBnB. There was a recent prostitution arrest at a local hotel though.
The difference between AirBnB and hotels, is that AirBnB runs an extensive criminal and sex offender background check on hosts and guests. They even check the terrorist watch list!
One opponent at first tried to say that an AirBnB house was hosting loud parties on weekends, and people were drunkenly sleeping in their cars and knocking on their windows. The newspaper ran this story prominently. It turned out it was the owner's young adult children that were throwing the parties when it wasn't rented to families on AirBnB.
My state has struck a deal with AirBnB to collect occupancy tax directly and we are contributing a lot in taxes in a state with a budget crisis.
Homes and rentals are still abundant and affordable, and our town gets all kinds of cool visitors that enrich our town.
I love AirBnB, my town has been doing vacation rentals for a hundred years but it has made it more popular and better. The new visitors are supporting a bunch of nice new and more upscale restaurants and bars. It's really revitalized this town and made it a much for fun place for young professionals to live.
Short term rentals started the revitalization, then new eateries opened, and next I hope we can attract a few tech companies now that we are a more desirable place to live.
>The difference between AirBnB and hotels, is that AirBnB runs an extensive criminal and sex offender background check on hosts and guests. They even check the terrorist watch list!
I stayed in an Airbnb condo once, and neither Airbnb nor the landlord ever knew my name. That's because the arrangements were made by a friend, and it was 4 people staying in an oceanside condo.
Did my friend violate the TOS by not providing them my name and SSN?
Is it a desirable place to live? Or a desirable place to vacation? It sounds like your town was already a destination if it supports 200 short term rentals.
The town is highly desirable waterfront community, the region has a bit of a jobs problem, and the town was in a funk, visitors were down, local businesses were struggling, all the towns talented young people move off to larger cities, to places that are fun.
Now this place is fun too, we have a nano-brewery opening up, hipster restaurants, new boat tours...
The town planner loves AirBnB because it lets the town use some slack housing supply like guest cottages and in-law suites to host visitors in the downtown area, where it would be impossible to build a new hotel.
And short term rentals bring in a different kind of visitor than the hotels ever did. People come and stay for a week with their family.
It's all really nice actually.
And a large majority of AirBnB hosts are women. AirBnB is empowering a lot of women to become micro real estate entrepreneurs and earn money.
When people support blanket bans, they are cutting off income and opportunity for people, mostly women.
Punish bad guests, have the police fine them. Towns make money off speeding and parking tickets, I see no reason they can't make money off the occasional guest violating a noise ordinance.
> extensive criminal and sex offender background check on hosts and guests. They even check the terrorist watch list!
What elements make it 'extensive'? Also, what's the point in checking the terrorist watch list? Someone on that list isn't going to act in a way to draw attention to themselves before they're ready; it's not much of a check to brag about in terms of 'will this tenant behave?'
> The difference between AirBnB and hotels...
And that hotels have public liability insurance... and don't suddenly become unavailable because of the cultural origin of your name... and generally comply with public-safety legislation designed for short-term accommodation (like fire exits)... so on and so forth.
Clearly AirBnB offers enough benefits to its users to continue, but it's far from the rosy picture you're painting to society as a whole. If AirBnB was such a uniformly rosy proposition, then they wouldn't need to lie about their activities.
Wow. As for the legality of all this, it's really beyond my ken.
Firstly, there's the question of jurisdiction. If a resident of the stste of New York uses a server outside of NY belonging to a company outside of NY to rent out an apartment in NYC, does the state of NY have jurisdiction? What about NYC?
Years ago Amazon took the stance that sales were interstate commerce and they shouldn't be forced to collect sales tax on interstate transactions. They ended up caving to New York's so-called "Amazon tax" [1].
Airbnb seems to be taking the view that it's not their problem if individuals violate NY/NYC law. Personally I think that's purely a self-serving stance a bit like how Craigslist turned a blind eye to prostitution.
I believe that illegal hotels in a few cities are Airbnb's core business and the efforts of cities to enforce laws prohibiting such are an existential threat. I believe Airbnb knows this.
I also believe that Airbnb will ultimately lose this one.
What this PDF represents is at best misleading and data manipulation and at worse misrepresentation. If at some point Airbnb has or will respond under oath or to a subpoena with this information well that could be a crime.
Whatever the case I think this is going to take years to play out.
Sifting through data looking for the unseen is one thing but this has got to be the biggest waste of time ever. AirBnB giving people a place to sleep. Yes, strangers in your apartment building..like you know your neighbors anyway.
It's not about people being uncomfortable with others in the building (a valid complaint, however).
It's about cities like NYC that have less than one percent vacancy rates, where a couple of AirBNB related effects put upward pressure on rents:
1) A person can stay in an apartment they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford, pushing rents up (I personally know several people who maintain apartments like this, either by leaving for a couple days per month or maintaining an apartment after moving out of town.)
2) A full apartment stays off the market because it is being used as a dedicated hotel
Both of these make a difference in rent prices, though it's hard to say how much.
I'd be happy to see a ban on AirBNB while residential vacancy rates are lower than 3%. I love the service but not what it does to my already pretty unaffordable city.
Yes, it's true that in a city with an artificial housing scarcity like NYC, AirBnB alters the distribution of who gets to consume housing. It opens the market to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to purchase.
Similarly, if we allow illegal immigrants to rent flats then that will also push rents higher. Should we attempt to prevent this as well? If not, why not?
Maybe an argument would be that, on balance, illegal immigration keeps cost down in the service industries. Those savings are realized at the local, neighborhood level in NYC (think your local bagel shop or bodega), while tourism and AirBnB tend to have less of a broader, distributed effect on commerce throughout the entire city. That's just one point. I guess on the other hand there is a cost of social services for illegal immigrants that would have to be quantified to make that argument. I don't know, it's complicated.
Maybe put another way, illegal immigrants are part of the community, so their presence in the housing market must be balanced against their role in a more complex system.
But if you are just asking about the nature of Justice, I don't have any thoughts on that.
> Similarly, if we allow illegal immigrants to rent flats then that will also push rents higher. Should we attempt to prevent this as well? If not, why not?
There are lots of factors that impact housing supply and demand. Whether they should be regulated / stopped generally becomes a question once the public actively engages in discussing it (see foreign investment in the Pacific Northwest for an example).
Basically, if the public doesn't care, the politicians don't care. Since a pol's main incentive is to get re-elected, the issue has to become important to their constituents, otherwise it effectively doesn't matter.
Because AirBNB use in NY amounts to economic rent-seeking. That is fundamentally different than disallowing a class of people to participate in the economy.
I lived next to a popular airbnb rental. The lack of neighborly respect, trash, and noise are not imagined problems. At this point cops now cruise my rural dirt road once a day just because of it. Commercial activity in a residential area is a serious problem.
I just purchased a home next to an AirBnB house - it's a mixed bag - well, it's pretty much all downsides.
More Uber/Lyft/taxi traffic at random hours of night - check
Strange people coming and going, pickups at all hours - check
Trash cans are never brought back from the street - check
Yard care - non existent
Socialization - zero
There's 0 contribution to the neighborhood from an AirBnB house - I say this as a person who has no problem having a roommate in my own home. There's pretty much zero incentive for an AirBnB'er to give a shit about the neighborhood (I don't blame them).
This isn't an outlier. A lot of my friends live in houses that are pretty much crash pads (Arlington/DC area), and there's the same problem - when people only live somewhere for a month or two, they don't participate in the community.
I have all the same problems but my neighbors are college students. Gentrification is a bitch. I'd say even 1-year residents are a detriment to the community.
> when people only live somewhere for a month or two, they don't participate in the community.
I bought a house and lived in it with my wife at the same address for 15-or-so years, and wouldn't have recognized my next-door neighbor if I were to run into him at the mall. Why do accidents related to zip-code have anything to do with "community"?
EDIT. My other neighbor turned out to be a co-worker, in a distant group, and somehow was transferred into mine. He was a sucky engineer who spent all of his time politicking. I had little interest in spending time commiserating with him about office politics.
Nice enough neighborhood. Good schools. Not a lot of through traffic. People kept their houses and lawns up. But I don't know that I've ever felt any inclination to spend any time with anyone because of the accident of a street address numbering scheme. Am I alone in this?
Not really. I only know one neighbor, and only that because he is such an asshole. A large chunk of homes on my block are rentals, with a constant flow of new tenants.
I (as a non-green account but not a very old one) sometimes feel it's difficult to express my opinion on this website about Facebook, Uber, Amazon and AirBnB. My comments typically go negative for a bit without comments, then maybe there is a bit of conversation.
