Well this totally sucks..

originally posted by JasonA:
Well this totally sucks..Your dollar will not go farther...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that. I guess that I'll have to tell our friends that we can't pay them for use of their apartment.

Mark Lipton
 
No, I think this is great. People not only of means should be able to live actually in a city, and not in the far-flung ghettos outlying. Get a hotel, touristes.
 
I'm sympathetic to the general principle of improving liveable city conditions for local residents. But to the extent that tourists are an important part of the local economy, making their visits less likely and winning cheaper center city housing as a result could end up becoming a sort of pyrrhic victory.

I speak in dramatic terms and there are lots of nuances. But you get my drift.
 
I'm interested in what you have to say, Rahsaan, because my initial reaction was on the visceral side of sympathy for what underlies the ruling.
 
Me too. I'm all about visceral sympathy for the little guy on the real estate totem pole (to the extent that I'm still that guy). And I'm the furthest thing from arguing that business needs to be catered to at all costs in order to ensure a good economy/society.

But if this regulation is strictly enforced and one sees a drastic reorganization of the Paris tourist apartment rental market, one could easily imagine a reduction in tourist visits to the city. Not a disappearance, but a reduction. And that would definitely affect a wide range of local businesses. Including the gastronomic businesses that so many of us love!

None of this is stark either/or. Much depends on how much the regulation is enforced, how much tourism grows/declines, etc. And I agree that something probably does need to be done for local residents.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
strictly enforced
Click to expand...

At the same time, having lived in France for some time, I can't help stifling a laugh at this.

Obviously, it's not going to be enforced. But what's touching is that they thought to consider it an objectionable thing. Because, like, yes. Give the apartment to Fatima and Rachid, not Ted and Candy.

(Ooh, I'm gettin' all socialist-like.)
 
Well, for example: if the goal is increasing a supply of affordable housing, and the housing stock in question is apartments aimed at at wealthy tourists, does insisting on long-term rentals accomplish this goal? Are Parisians searching for affordable housing really in the market for these places? Certainly not. So to achieve the stated goal, something else would have to happen. Forced subdivision? Rent control? Eminent domain? Even in France, forcing owners to disgorge property in order to repurpose it for affordable housing seems unlikely.

Now, if there's a big stock of rental places that would otherwise be highly affordable housing, the move makes more sense. But I suspect that while such places might exist, they're rather outnumbered by the other kind of apartment. An Eiffel Tower view doesn't magically become affordable housing unless one removes the windows.

Also, as Rahsaan suggests, this would impact the economy. I have no idea how much, but he might. A tourist spending a month in an apartment is spending money at a retail level that she is not spending if she's in a hotel for four nights, in which case it's going to hotels and restaurants only. That might not matter in a neighborhood where tourists don't go. I suspect markets in, say, the 7th might feel differently.

As with most such moves of this type, I suspect that the hand of the government's interest in affordable housing is somewhat less involved than the hand of the hoteliers' lobby.

Having read some more about this, however, it seems that the initial report might have been a bit overstated.
 
originally posted by Thor:

As with most such moves of this type, I suspect that the hand of the government's interest in affordable housing is somewhat less involved than the hand of the hoteliers' lobby.
Click to expand...

Bam. That's certainly my read.

Not to mention that rent control doesn't work.
 
Nothing about the hotel lobby?

Damn, beaten twice. The omission of even bothering to make mention of outside influence sort of makes this article useless, as does the lack of numbers.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Also, as Rahsaan suggests, this would impact the economy. I have no idea how much, but he might. A tourist spending a month in an apartment is spending money at a retail level that she is not spending if she's in a hotel for four nights, in which case it's going to hotels and restaurants only. That might not matter in a neighborhood where tourists don't go. I suspect markets in, say, the 7th might feel differently..
Click to expand...

Or the tourist might not even go to France.

Those of us on here have very particular and specific travel/food/wine desires but many other people are more flexible and look for cheapest/easiest destination. Right now Paris is set up well for tourism (not that it is perfect, because nothing is perfect) but its relative attractions are likely to change in the future.

Things always change.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
The omission of even bothering to make mention of outside influence sort of makes this article useless...
Click to expand...

Newspaper articles are supposed to be useful?

I read the NY Times every day but much of the value from articles like this one is in sparking conversation (like this one). And then pointing out all the ways in which the article was oversimplified.

I pity the people whose understanding of the world does not allow them to do that.

Or maybe they pity me.
 
Slate has a great running column about the overhyped trend in the NYT per week. (Anyone catch the "huge colored contact lenses la Lady Gaga" in the Times this weekend? Let us weep for the millions of... well, maybe the handful of... and their potential eye strain...)
 
somebody will figure a way around this. free lodging for a week but with a $2000/week tour guide.
Click to expand...
And that, too, is undoubtedly correct. Like Utah and its "private drinking clubs."
 
I know, it was just an example of a creative workaround. In a country where one has to have three completely separate interactions to buy a macaroon, I suspect ingenuity will work its magic.
 
Yes, having seen how well the rent control laws worked in the Manhattan housing market, I am extremely leery of government's attempts to regulate urban housing. I am also sympathetic to the plight of Parisians who want to find housing in the city (Bay Area residents might have some sympathy here), but question whether the mechanism mentioned will really have the intended effect. More practical might be levying the standard hotel tax on those people who make a business of renting out their pied-a-terre.

Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top