Finally, claims were made about the process which led to the development of the new ordinance governing short term renting of homes.
o Home owners were adequately represented by VR agents and real estate agents as the interests of the agents are closely aligned with those of the owners.
o These people were told that if they didn’t accept the new ordinance VRs would be banned.
o The industry rejected the first ordinance, which was developed after extensive public consultation, so they are the ones who lack moderation or compromise.
REPLY: The argument that the new ordinance governing short-term renting of homes was arrived at through an inclusive and fair process simply ignores the article, in which Shon Tomlin explains that the people most affected by the ordinance were NOT included in the discussions before it was decided. That is the very reason he and his three colleagues have set up a new organization – to represent their interests and provide them with support.
The claim assumes that the interests of VR agents are aligned with those of homeowners and thus that the latter’s interests were adequately represented in the discussions with the City. But that’s not the case as many homeowners don’t use agents, the new regulations impose numerous burdensome restrictions and arduous procedures and agents would be all in favor of those as they make their services more valuable – and hence enable them to charge their clients more – and would help drive those homeowners who don’t use them to start doing so. So in fact it is reasonable to assume that the interests of agents and homeowners are not aligned at all.
The subsequent claims about refusals, warnings etc., etc., are simply irrelevant as they fail to recognize the basic point made in the article, namely, that homeowners weren’t included or adequately represented in the discussion in the first place.
o Home owners were adequately represented by VR agents and real estate agents as the interests of the agents are closely aligned with those of the owners.
o These people were told that if they didn’t accept the new ordinance VRs would be banned.
o The industry rejected the first ordinance, which was developed after extensive public consultation, so they are the ones who lack moderation or compromise.
REPLY: The argument that the new ordinance governing short-term renting of homes was arrived at through an inclusive and fair process simply ignores the article, in which Shon Tomlin explains that the people most affected by the ordinance were NOT included in the discussions before it was decided. That is the very reason he and his three colleagues have set up a new organization – to represent their interests and provide them with support.
The claim assumes that the interests of VR agents are aligned with those of homeowners and thus that the latter’s interests were adequately represented in the discussions with the City. But that’s not the case as many homeowners don’t use agents, the new regulations impose numerous burdensome restrictions and arduous procedures and agents would be all in favor of those as they make their services more valuable – and hence enable them to charge their clients more – and would help drive those homeowners who don’t use them to start doing so. So in fact it is reasonable to assume that the interests of agents and homeowners are not aligned at all.
The subsequent claims about refusals, warnings etc., etc., are simply irrelevant as they fail to recognize the basic point made in the article, namely, that homeowners weren’t included or adequately represented in the discussion in the first place.
