Posted on 12/07/2014 4:09:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Politicians say they love the free market but they hate it - on both sides of the aisle.
If they can’t regulate it or tax it, they’ll move to kill it.
If they can’t control it, they’d rather not have it.
Doesn't he mean "undocumented hotels"? We need comprehensive hotel reform. smh
Yeah and undocumented taxis.
I wonder why both Democratic and Republican politicians are such hypocrites.
What’s wrong with people operating an unregulated business? They’re no different from the illegal aliens whose actions they think are laudable.
They just want to make an honest living.
Driving an undocumented taxi or operating an undocumented hotel is an act of love - you know, money to feed the family.
You don’t want to break up these families do you?
That’s my point.
Don’t politicians and bureaucrats have better things to do with their time?
I do know that if my neighbor started renting out rooms to transients, I’d head straight to the zoning board.
Uber and AirBnB are at the center of the free market capitalism idea. Thats why liberals hate both of them so much. Liberals want to control, and regulate, and most of all, tax. And Uber and AirBnB throw a sand in the gears.
I’ve actually read freepers opposed to Uber, which surprised me. “What if a rapist is driving the car?” Please. First of all the odds are negligible, and second of all, living in a free society and being a free people involves risk (albeit it a very small risk in this case).
“Transients” aren’t renting rooms on AirBnb. People travelling or on vacation are. You sound like you love the nanny state.
The Second Amendment is useful in such a situation.
It causes loss of Hotel/motel room tax which is high in cities like Vegas, NYC San Fran, Nashville, etc. I am not so sure I want a different stranger next door every other day or even a few times a year-do you?
For one thing, you'd probably find that short-term rentals arranged through AirBNB violate most zoning ordinances in residential neighborhoods. Related to that, you're already seeing indications that insurance companies are writing provisions into their homeowners' policies specifically prohibiting this type of arrangement (in effect, the insurance company is saying that the home has to be insured as a commercial establishment rather than a private home).
The same issues are in play with a company like Uber. But there's a whole different set of issues there because a passenger in a car faces a lot more risks than someone sleeping in a bed. For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone who owns a vehicle would run the risk (in the event of an accident) of a massive lawsuit by some stranger who was paying for a ride in the car.
A lot of the support for these companies that you find on FreeRepublic would disappear if HUD started contracting through AirBNB for Section 8 housing.
To me, the biggest risk isn’t to the passenger ... it’s to the DRIVER. And I don’t mean the risk of picking up a criminal through Uber. I mean the risk of getting into a car accident with a stranger in the vehicle and getting a letter a few weeks later from an ambulance-chasing lawyer representing a client who is claiming millions of dollars in frivolous damages.
“We support common sense regulations like the ones approved in Spokane,” explained Uber spokesperson Michael Amodeo “The Spokane regulations embrace the unique nature of ridesharing.”
...
A limited amount of regulation is actually good for business. And like it or not, the constitution pretty much gives the government free reign when it comes to regulating commerce.
blah blah blah. What if I get hit by a car standing on a street corner? What if get struck by lightning?
Life entails risk. Freedom entails risk. A tiny risk doesn’t warrant prohibiting something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.