Post by High Priestess on Dec 25, 2016 2:05:01 GMT
I wanted to share this blog by an Airbnb host -- she makes some excellent points here that are often overlooked as cities consider short term rental regulations, or in the whole public dialogue on Airbnb hosting:
dragonflyhill.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/storifiedhow-the-hotel-industry-got-you-to-hate-your-neighbor-and-love-the-multinational-corporation/
I wanted to highlight two points she makes:
I could add one more element to this -- but It's one that is very important to me and other women like myself. Namely, that single middle aged or elderly woman are the people who were traditionally the "innkeepers" or proprietors of boarding houses, lodging houses and "pensions" of the 18th and 19th centuries and before. This was a job that was available for women who didn't have as many options as men, and this may still be true for such women today -- particularly those who are SINGLE homeowners. It's not easy to afford to keep a home when you're single on a middle class or lower income level. So, there's both a marital status and gender issue involved here.
And this marital status issue comes into play in another way. Many cities have zoning laws which in essence express very heavy bias towards (in favor of) the nuclear family, and against single individuals. Some of these zoning laws stipulate that certain residential areas are for "single families" ( the very word "single family residence" contains this bias!) and this is codified into law, for instance, making it legal for a married couple with 10 children to live in a home, while it would be illegal for 12 people (or perhaps even 10 or 8 or 6) to live in that same house, if they were not blood relatives. These antiquated and heterosexist, anti-single person laws make it very difficult for people who choose or need to live with "non-standard" families such as a group of roommates.
I even heard a story from a host friend of mine, about a group of adults who bought a house in Connecticut. They were I think 5 or 6 unrelated adults. They bought the house together, but were then sued by their neighbors, on the basis that they were not a "single family" and so it was not legal for them to live in this house in an area zoned for "single family residences" !! How insane is that!! Their neighbors were suing them for living together in the house they bought together!!
The only way they were able to get around the law was to use an odd law in their support, which made an exception for live-in servants of a family. So they presented themselves as a couple of 2 with 4 live-in servants and that was the only way they were legally able to remain living together in the house that THEY ALL OWNED!! These insane kinds of laws need absolutely to be abolished.
I would argue too, that "single family only" zoning is not that far removed from the racist property covenants that used to exist in the first part of the 20th century, which prohibited property owners from selling property to non-white individuals. The city or region wanted to keep "those people" out. Well, zoning a residential area as "single family only" is doing exactly that!!
It's the new, acceptable form of prejudice -- the idea that groups of adults who live together without being married or in blood relationships, pose some terrible threat to the social order!
Call the police if your neighbors aren't married!!!
We need to reveal this prejudicial nonsense for what it is.
dragonflyhill.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/storifiedhow-the-hotel-industry-got-you-to-hate-your-neighbor-and-love-the-multinational-corporation/
I wanted to highlight two points she makes:
"Long term tenant/room mates can provide specific problems for women, elders, families with children and people w disabilities."
"To remove someone after they’ve been in your home more than 30 days, requires going through the entire eviction process.
That’s emotionally, physically and financially dangerous to low income people, families, people on fixed incomes.
Short term rentals allow for more autonomy in one’s own home. That’s so important."
That’s emotionally, physically and financially dangerous to low income people, families, people on fixed incomes.
Short term rentals allow for more autonomy in one’s own home. That’s so important."
I could add one more element to this -- but It's one that is very important to me and other women like myself. Namely, that single middle aged or elderly woman are the people who were traditionally the "innkeepers" or proprietors of boarding houses, lodging houses and "pensions" of the 18th and 19th centuries and before. This was a job that was available for women who didn't have as many options as men, and this may still be true for such women today -- particularly those who are SINGLE homeowners. It's not easy to afford to keep a home when you're single on a middle class or lower income level. So, there's both a marital status and gender issue involved here.
And this marital status issue comes into play in another way. Many cities have zoning laws which in essence express very heavy bias towards (in favor of) the nuclear family, and against single individuals. Some of these zoning laws stipulate that certain residential areas are for "single families" ( the very word "single family residence" contains this bias!) and this is codified into law, for instance, making it legal for a married couple with 10 children to live in a home, while it would be illegal for 12 people (or perhaps even 10 or 8 or 6) to live in that same house, if they were not blood relatives. These antiquated and heterosexist, anti-single person laws make it very difficult for people who choose or need to live with "non-standard" families such as a group of roommates.
I even heard a story from a host friend of mine, about a group of adults who bought a house in Connecticut. They were I think 5 or 6 unrelated adults. They bought the house together, but were then sued by their neighbors, on the basis that they were not a "single family" and so it was not legal for them to live in this house in an area zoned for "single family residences" !! How insane is that!! Their neighbors were suing them for living together in the house they bought together!!
The only way they were able to get around the law was to use an odd law in their support, which made an exception for live-in servants of a family. So they presented themselves as a couple of 2 with 4 live-in servants and that was the only way they were legally able to remain living together in the house that THEY ALL OWNED!! These insane kinds of laws need absolutely to be abolished.
I would argue too, that "single family only" zoning is not that far removed from the racist property covenants that used to exist in the first part of the 20th century, which prohibited property owners from selling property to non-white individuals. The city or region wanted to keep "those people" out. Well, zoning a residential area as "single family only" is doing exactly that!!
It's the new, acceptable form of prejudice -- the idea that groups of adults who live together without being married or in blood relationships, pose some terrible threat to the social order!
We need to reveal this prejudicial nonsense for what it is.