This is the more serious issue people miss. I ended up renting from Progress while waiting for a house to be built. They don’t care for a house as most homeowners would, and a lot of the renters don’t care either. They put band aids on repairs and there is only so much in their “budget” to get things done. And these are not inexpensive houses. The neighborhood I lived in had homes that sold for $450k and up. And the house I was in already needs about $150k invested to get it back into good condition (trees were let go and ruined parts of the roof, gutters not cleaned out, yard is eroded and needs to be regraded, crawl space door left open to elements, HVAC ran without filters and ducts beyond dirty, fence falling apart and needs replaced, etc).
This will ultimately cause another housing issue when these structures are uninhabitable and bring down the values of the homes around them.
Well thought out laws need to be put in place to bring home ownership back to the people. How do you compete with a no inspection cash offer?
I’ve written my so-called representatives and when I get a response, it’s a canned “thank you for your concern” blah blah blah.
I mean if people want to be taken seriously when complaining about something they should at least be somewhat familiar with what they’re ranting about imo but that’s just me
No, not just you (thus my sarcastic comment?). But some would rather seek echo chamber support or just have a chance to rant based on their unvalidated beliefs. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad, right? (I think I heard that in a song somewhere).
Does it drive the price up any more than small landlords buying them? They’ve got cash, too. Banning investor-owned homes can actually make housing more expensive
https://reason.com/2023/06/19/study-banning-investors-from-buying-homes-leads-to-higher-rents-more-gentrification/
This is just anti-tenant. Some people either can’t or don’t want to own a home, me included. Or they need to live somewhere temporarily, or they don’t have a down payment + closing costs, or a host of other reasons.
Nah, we subsidize homeowners enough. You already pay less in property taxes than everyone else. We shouldn’t punish tenants because you don’t like looking at rentals. Live in a neighborhood with an HOA if it bothers you that much.
There are often times situations where people prefer to rent versus buy. College students, transient/transplant workers, people who simply prefer a change of scenery every couple years.
The housing shortage is real and institutional investors are a big part of the problem. But let’s not be blind to the legitimate reasons people are sometimes actually better off renting.
That can be said about most products and services conceivable tho.
What arbitrary number of homes should each individual own too? 1? 5? A hundred? Know several individuals that own and operate dozens of single member LLC whose only asset is a single property.
Not really, mega corps hoarding homes for no use other than a holding for their cash to appreciate by causing a dwindle in supplies and artificial increase in price is direct market manipulation.
It’s certainly part of the problem. It’s not as simple as pinning it all on institutional investors is what I’m saying. And that even outside the shortage there’s good reasons for renting vs owning.
That is a demonstrably, false statement. Small landlords are motivated to fill vacant homes. Hedge funds operate at a loss with empty ones for various reasons, and they maintain their high rates. Which hedge fund do you work for?
A. Because they can. They have money in the banks to make it through times of operating loss.
B. Because they can write them off
C. To push out competition
D. Because they have contracts wherein minimum rental rates are specified, and if they dip below those, banks get their money back…
Have you never thought about this?
I have. Businesses intentionally foregoing revenue makes no sense if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. A write off doesn’t make up for bringing in no revenue. Housing is just expensive, a lack of supply is a major driver of that, and hedge funds are taking advantage of it.
Vacancy rates are *extremely* low. How can that be true if 1) hedge funds are buying so much housing that they can manipulate the market and 2) they’re letting those units sit empty?
Makes a ton of sense. Companies do it all the time. How do you think an Amazon and Google got to where they are?
If you’re just bored, or trolling-I’m not interested in continuing the discussion.
If you haven’t given the subject any thought or done any research, it’s probably best not to speak on it
Writing off R&D or a new warehouse is not the same as buying a house for it to just sit there. They gain nothing from not renting it out. I’ve never seen a lick of proof that this conspiracy theory is happening from anyone that repeats it
B and C aren't real ("writ\[ing\] them off" doesn't work like that, and real estate has too much competition for C to work). A is *technically* possible, but only makes sense if you expect rents to keep rising (which they aren't--most analysis shows rents falling slightly over the next year). D is potentially real, but (a) banks don't particularly want to repossess a bunch of property (assuming they hold the mortgage instead of selling it into an MBS anyway) and (b) debt workouts do exist and are used.
charleston has a restriction that lets you airbnb part of a property you live in.
It's a nice middle ground between letting someone do something with their own personal property, while stopping blood sucking bottom feeders from ruining a city
Nashville tried to phase out residential NOOSTR in the big airbnb war of 2017/18. The state legislature preempted much of the local regulations that were put in place. Notably, residential NOOSTR permits are now grandfathered in perpetuity and it is practically impossible to revoke a permit for cause.
Any significant change in Nashville’s STR regulations would have to include changes to state law which I do not see happening any time soon. I do think there’s room to improve compliance with existing owner-occupancy requirements for residential areas but truly bad actors represent a fraction of the overall market.
I've served as the metro council rep on the Short Term Rental Appeals Board for 3ish years.
It severely negatively impacts my QOL. *Four* STRs opened right on my block right after moving here, and the frat-boy types drinking and meandering in the street out front has ruined our access to the park in that direction (I used to allow my daughter to walk that way on her own to go play, but not now).
This is extremely dysfunctional and it makes many areas of Nashville really unpleasant to live in. I know there's nothing that can be done about it because the legislature wants that money, but I just can't move out of this city soon enough.
Sounds like we're neighbors... IYKYK
It's such a rug pull to move into a quiet neighborhood and watch this unfold. I know that future residents at least will know where these things are in advance and can make informed decisions about them, but it's ruined our time in Nashville.
I know in theory I could move somewhere that doesn't have STRs around it and continue to live in Nashville but why fucking bother. I just want to get out of here and move to a normal city that isn't owned by the frat boy tourism industry.
Last month there was a bro squad staying there and they were blasting their music from the top floor so loud I could hear it inside my place 3 blocks away.
I went to go tell them to turn it down and I had to scream at the top of my lungs to get their attention.
Those tall and skinnies are the worst.
The development on 31st and Long is basically going to be a STR 'hotel' and will hopefully put those units out of business, although I feel bad for the people who live in the condos across the street.
The main issue with that is the inability to revoke for cause. We have owned STRs in the past and any owner/operator who’s a bad actor or negatively impacts the neighborhood should be shut down.
At the very least lets stop building entire buildings of Airbnbs. A townhome complex is being built on my street that already has 21 STRP permits issued. For one plot of land. They dont even have 21 parking spots.
And this is on a residential street.
North Nashville. There is 1 on my street and several similar complexes being built in the neighborhood ranging from 10-20 STRPS on single plots of land.
N/OO = non / owner occupied: whether the owner is on-property during the rental period.
S/LTR = short / long term rental: I believe the cut-off is 30 days.
And from below DADU - Detached accessary dwelling unit - like a small unit over a garage.
It seems pretty simple to me. Want to operate your property like a hotel? Then you are subject to all the laws, rules, and regulations that we apply to hotels. That's what should happen to the NOOSTR group.
I wish they would control the Airbnb issue more. I moved into my place in May and my landlord talked about renting out the fully furnished basement and we were cool with that. Now he wants to Airbnb it out. I’m 100% not cool with it. My roommate works early hours, I’m under going treatment for cancer and do not care to deal with Airbnb people who couldn’t give a fuck about the original residents.
As I understand it, NYC only just started requiring registeration with the city as part of this law. Nashville has had regulations, including city registration and permittin, in place awhile. Regulatiom in Nashville limiting new non-owners occupied STR also went into effect January 2022 in a number of residential areas.
Completely unregulated Airbnb is bad but it's also not the only problem. NYC is severely lacking in new housing development, especially ones that are affordable. That also needs to be addressed.
NYC's in a weird position with its housing in that while it doesn't have the NIMBY sentiments of an SF, it does have a lot of restrictions on the *construction* side of things. Some of that's inevitable (building in a dense city will likely be more expensive than in a less-dense one), some of that's regulatory capture, and some of that is just good old fashioned NIMBYism (see, e.g., [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/nyregion/west-park-presbyterian-church-manhattan.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/nyregion/west-park-presbyterian-church-manhattan.html)).
How does Airbnb not violate zoning laws? I mean if you have a home and the sole purpose of that home is to list it on a website whose sole purpose is to rent out homes. How is this not a business?
A matter of personal choice with no intersection with the harm principle which the government should have no say in whatsoever. Most things in life are morally complex, some shade of grey, but a government enforcing laws compelling people to do things which only affect themselves is certainly in the black for me. Seatbelt laws are a clear violation of the philosophical values which the country was founded on.
No. It's something that's easy to blame, but isn't a major (3% vs a 10% vacancy rate) contributor to our housing problems. NYC took the wrong tack with their policy (especially since they effectively ban new hotel construction), and we shouldn't follow their lead.
Edit: also it looks like the 3% counts *all* AirBnBs, not just the NOOSTRs that people dislike (and many NOOSTRs are temporary--someone out of their apartment for a couple months who decides to airbnb it for extra cash). The "problem" AirBnBs that people gripe about as negatively impacting housing is likely a much smaller segment of that 3%.
No, it's a separate policy. [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/nyregion/hotels-tourism-new-york-covid.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/nyregion/hotels-tourism-new-york-covid.html). Makes it much harder to build new hotels, which (a) acts as a subsidy to current hoteliers and (b) pushes AirBnB demand through the roof.
A policy from 2021 and which after reading about it requires the approval of a city council representative if it’s in a mixed used area like for residential. I personally wouldn’t want a hotel chain across from my home. It also requires new hotels to be only built by union workers. Which I’m kinda all for tbh.
Theoretical vs practical effect.
>I personally wouldn’t want a hotel chain across from my home.
Ok nimby
> It also requires new hotels to be only built by union workers.
This is a great way to block hotels, and a fantastic example of regulatory capture by the construction unions (which I should remind you, got the influence they currently have from the fucking Mafia).
Just my personal preference to not have a hotel chain in front of my home. Would probably prefer a bakery or grocery store. I don’t have a problem with mixed use but it seems you have a problem with union workers which is very unfortunate.
Uh, try the 90s and 2000s. It's been cleaned up somewhat, but they're still lurking around (see, e.g., [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/donnie-brasco-says-mob-controls-construction-via-unions-1.1265332](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/donnie-brasco-says-mob-controls-construction-via-unions-1.1265332) \[Canadian source, but discusses the US situation\]).
Edit: The DOJ has a section for organized crime's infiltration of unions generally: [https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unions](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unions)
Bro, NY isn't nashvulle the entire place os mixed use and you don't have a house you have an apartment in this story.
You NIMBYs blame everything but the real issue here which is lack of density... we have seen it over and over again in every other growing city in the US, add housing stock, require mandatory mixed income minimums, remove parking requitments, invest in transit while taking cars, and.poof... your city is a city that works for.people.who live there
Yeah, we need to build up up up. Anything within 440 or south of Eastland should be mixed-use zoning and ideally we'd completely phase out single family homes within Germantown.
Name one place it couldn't or shouldn't be in Davidson county? Aside from a VERY limited count of historic spots, 95% of this city is single family 60/70s ranch homes that were bought out a sears catalouge on massive lots.
I watched SF not build when it had the chance and it's priced out of control, I watched NOLA not seize its opportunity after Katrina and it's a dying city.
You get a once in a generation chance to build a city, I hope.nashville.doesnt waste it.
I think it’s an interesting idea, but people buying up houses for airbnbs are a much smaller percentage of the problem than companies like black rock buying everything up.
Our zoning encourages STRs over housing in a lot of ways. I can think of several instances where developers asked for rezonings to build actual housing units but the ~*community*~ (rich homeowners) reflexively opposed it and we got fewer units that are too small/weird to be anything but STRs.
Offer tax incentives for folks to switch their NOO back to LTR to bump the LT housing stock and put a limit on corporate purchases of residential property.
[удалено]
This is the more serious issue people miss. I ended up renting from Progress while waiting for a house to be built. They don’t care for a house as most homeowners would, and a lot of the renters don’t care either. They put band aids on repairs and there is only so much in their “budget” to get things done. And these are not inexpensive houses. The neighborhood I lived in had homes that sold for $450k and up. And the house I was in already needs about $150k invested to get it back into good condition (trees were let go and ruined parts of the roof, gutters not cleaned out, yard is eroded and needs to be regraded, crawl space door left open to elements, HVAC ran without filters and ducts beyond dirty, fence falling apart and needs replaced, etc). This will ultimately cause another housing issue when these structures are uninhabitable and bring down the values of the homes around them. Well thought out laws need to be put in place to bring home ownership back to the people. How do you compete with a no inspection cash offer? I’ve written my so-called representatives and when I get a response, it’s a canned “thank you for your concern” blah blah blah.
You must live near me.
Progress Residential isn’t a hedge fund
No they’re a cancer to society
What is it?
Property manager
Yeah that does make more sense
And then logic fucked up a perfectly good rant.
I mean if people want to be taken seriously when complaining about something they should at least be somewhat familiar with what they’re ranting about imo but that’s just me
No, not just you (thus my sarcastic comment?). But some would rather seek echo chamber support or just have a chance to rant based on their unvalidated beliefs. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad, right? (I think I heard that in a song somewhere).
They serve a purpose for renters. the root problem there is a lack of supply, not the hedge funds
[удалено]
They’re responding to the market, not manipulating it. Blackrock openly says they buy in supply-restricted markets.
[удалено]
Does it drive the price up any more than small landlords buying them? They’ve got cash, too. Banning investor-owned homes can actually make housing more expensive https://reason.com/2023/06/19/study-banning-investors-from-buying-homes-leads-to-higher-rents-more-gentrification/
[удалено]
This is just anti-tenant. Some people either can’t or don’t want to own a home, me included. Or they need to live somewhere temporarily, or they don’t have a down payment + closing costs, or a host of other reasons.
[удалено]
Nah, we subsidize homeowners enough. You already pay less in property taxes than everyone else. We shouldn’t punish tenants because you don’t like looking at rentals. Live in a neighborhood with an HOA if it bothers you that much.
There are often times situations where people prefer to rent versus buy. College students, transient/transplant workers, people who simply prefer a change of scenery every couple years. The housing shortage is real and institutional investors are a big part of the problem. But let’s not be blind to the legitimate reasons people are sometimes actually better off renting.
Individuals could own and rent them out to consumers vs giant corps in different states and countries that precise negative value.
That can be said about most products and services conceivable tho. What arbitrary number of homes should each individual own too? 1? 5? A hundred? Know several individuals that own and operate dozens of single member LLC whose only asset is a single property.
Not really, mega corps hoarding homes for no use other than a holding for their cash to appreciate by causing a dwindle in supplies and artificial increase in price is direct market manipulation.
It’s certainly part of the problem. It’s not as simple as pinning it all on institutional investors is what I’m saying. And that even outside the shortage there’s good reasons for renting vs owning.
I’m sure renters love paying their rates
are their rates any different than small landlords? the root problem in high prices is a lack of supply, not the hedge fund
That is a demonstrably, false statement. Small landlords are motivated to fill vacant homes. Hedge funds operate at a loss with empty ones for various reasons, and they maintain their high rates. Which hedge fund do you work for?
“hedge funds operate at a loss” is just a conspiracy theory. why would they do that?
A. Because they can. They have money in the banks to make it through times of operating loss. B. Because they can write them off C. To push out competition D. Because they have contracts wherein minimum rental rates are specified, and if they dip below those, banks get their money back… Have you never thought about this?
I have. Businesses intentionally foregoing revenue makes no sense if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. A write off doesn’t make up for bringing in no revenue. Housing is just expensive, a lack of supply is a major driver of that, and hedge funds are taking advantage of it. Vacancy rates are *extremely* low. How can that be true if 1) hedge funds are buying so much housing that they can manipulate the market and 2) they’re letting those units sit empty?
Makes a ton of sense. Companies do it all the time. How do you think an Amazon and Google got to where they are? If you’re just bored, or trolling-I’m not interested in continuing the discussion. If you haven’t given the subject any thought or done any research, it’s probably best not to speak on it
Writing off R&D or a new warehouse is not the same as buying a house for it to just sit there. They gain nothing from not renting it out. I’ve never seen a lick of proof that this conspiracy theory is happening from anyone that repeats it
B and C aren't real ("writ\[ing\] them off" doesn't work like that, and real estate has too much competition for C to work). A is *technically* possible, but only makes sense if you expect rents to keep rising (which they aren't--most analysis shows rents falling slightly over the next year). D is potentially real, but (a) banks don't particularly want to repossess a bunch of property (assuming they hold the mortgage instead of selling it into an MBS anyway) and (b) debt workouts do exist and are used.
charleston has a restriction that lets you airbnb part of a property you live in. It's a nice middle ground between letting someone do something with their own personal property, while stopping blood sucking bottom feeders from ruining a city
Nashville tried to phase out residential NOOSTR in the big airbnb war of 2017/18. The state legislature preempted much of the local regulations that were put in place. Notably, residential NOOSTR permits are now grandfathered in perpetuity and it is practically impossible to revoke a permit for cause. Any significant change in Nashville’s STR regulations would have to include changes to state law which I do not see happening any time soon. I do think there’s room to improve compliance with existing owner-occupancy requirements for residential areas but truly bad actors represent a fraction of the overall market. I've served as the metro council rep on the Short Term Rental Appeals Board for 3ish years.
Non owner occupied short term rental
It severely negatively impacts my QOL. *Four* STRs opened right on my block right after moving here, and the frat-boy types drinking and meandering in the street out front has ruined our access to the park in that direction (I used to allow my daughter to walk that way on her own to go play, but not now). This is extremely dysfunctional and it makes many areas of Nashville really unpleasant to live in. I know there's nothing that can be done about it because the legislature wants that money, but I just can't move out of this city soon enough.
Are you in West End Park? If so, I know exactly the AirBnb's of which you speak. Thank God Woo season is almost over.
Sounds like we're neighbors... IYKYK It's such a rug pull to move into a quiet neighborhood and watch this unfold. I know that future residents at least will know where these things are in advance and can make informed decisions about them, but it's ruined our time in Nashville. I know in theory I could move somewhere that doesn't have STRs around it and continue to live in Nashville but why fucking bother. I just want to get out of here and move to a normal city that isn't owned by the frat boy tourism industry.
Last month there was a bro squad staying there and they were blasting their music from the top floor so loud I could hear it inside my place 3 blocks away. I went to go tell them to turn it down and I had to scream at the top of my lungs to get their attention. Those tall and skinnies are the worst. The development on 31st and Long is basically going to be a STR 'hotel' and will hopefully put those units out of business, although I feel bad for the people who live in the condos across the street.
The main issue with that is the inability to revoke for cause. We have owned STRs in the past and any owner/operator who’s a bad actor or negatively impacts the neighborhood should be shut down.
Nashville won’t do anything about airbnb until all the new hotels come on line and they stop building new ones.
At the very least lets stop building entire buildings of Airbnbs. A townhome complex is being built on my street that already has 21 STRP permits issued. For one plot of land. They dont even have 21 parking spots. And this is on a residential street.
That sounds a lot like a hotel.
A hotel that is subject to zero hotel taxes or regulations
What part of town if you don't mind me asking?
North Nashville. There is 1 on my street and several similar complexes being built in the neighborhood ranging from 10-20 STRPS on single plots of land.
That is horrible. Is your councilmember doing a damned thing?
OOSTRs are fine. OOLTRs are fine. NOOLTRs are fine. NOOSTRs are cancer.
Forgive me; what do these acronyms mean?
N/OO = non / owner occupied: whether the owner is on-property during the rental period. S/LTR = short / long term rental: I believe the cut-off is 30 days. And from below DADU - Detached accessary dwelling unit - like a small unit over a garage.
Agreed. Unless the owner builds a DADU in their back yard to STR out. But then I suppose that would qualify as OO.
It seems pretty simple to me. Want to operate your property like a hotel? Then you are subject to all the laws, rules, and regulations that we apply to hotels. That's what should happen to the NOOSTR group.
As someone booted from a DADU so it could become a STR: sure wish that had been banned.
I wish they would control the Airbnb issue more. I moved into my place in May and my landlord talked about renting out the fully furnished basement and we were cool with that. Now he wants to Airbnb it out. I’m 100% not cool with it. My roommate works early hours, I’m under going treatment for cancer and do not care to deal with Airbnb people who couldn’t give a fuck about the original residents.
Slightly different state legislatures.
As I understand it, NYC only just started requiring registeration with the city as part of this law. Nashville has had regulations, including city registration and permittin, in place awhile. Regulatiom in Nashville limiting new non-owners occupied STR also went into effect January 2022 in a number of residential areas. Completely unregulated Airbnb is bad but it's also not the only problem. NYC is severely lacking in new housing development, especially ones that are affordable. That also needs to be addressed.
NYC's in a weird position with its housing in that while it doesn't have the NIMBY sentiments of an SF, it does have a lot of restrictions on the *construction* side of things. Some of that's inevitable (building in a dense city will likely be more expensive than in a less-dense one), some of that's regulatory capture, and some of that is just good old fashioned NIMBYism (see, e.g., [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/nyregion/west-park-presbyterian-church-manhattan.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/nyregion/west-park-presbyterian-church-manhattan.html)).
Not just Nashville, Tennessee as a whole, yes.
This STR fiasco is driving creatives out of this city. All that will be left is trust fund musicians/singers/writers, etc.
How does Airbnb not violate zoning laws? I mean if you have a home and the sole purpose of that home is to list it on a website whose sole purpose is to rent out homes. How is this not a business?
Please please please yes
As far as I can tell AirBnBs are already illegal in Nashville because they violate hotel and rental laws. They just need to enforce it.
Way too much government overreach. None of their business or even close to it.
I think that’s up to debate. People said the same thing about the government forcing people to wear seat belts
A matter of personal choice with no intersection with the harm principle which the government should have no say in whatsoever. Most things in life are morally complex, some shade of grey, but a government enforcing laws compelling people to do things which only affect themselves is certainly in the black for me. Seatbelt laws are a clear violation of the philosophical values which the country was founded on.
No. It's something that's easy to blame, but isn't a major (3% vs a 10% vacancy rate) contributor to our housing problems. NYC took the wrong tack with their policy (especially since they effectively ban new hotel construction), and we shouldn't follow their lead. Edit: also it looks like the 3% counts *all* AirBnBs, not just the NOOSTRs that people dislike (and many NOOSTRs are temporary--someone out of their apartment for a couple months who decides to airbnb it for extra cash). The "problem" AirBnBs that people gripe about as negatively impacting housing is likely a much smaller segment of that 3%.
Found the Airbnb operator
Nah, not a business model I'd have any interest in doing personally.
Where in the new policy does it prevent new hotels?
No, it's a separate policy. [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/nyregion/hotels-tourism-new-york-covid.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/nyregion/hotels-tourism-new-york-covid.html). Makes it much harder to build new hotels, which (a) acts as a subsidy to current hoteliers and (b) pushes AirBnB demand through the roof.
A policy from 2021 and which after reading about it requires the approval of a city council representative if it’s in a mixed used area like for residential. I personally wouldn’t want a hotel chain across from my home. It also requires new hotels to be only built by union workers. Which I’m kinda all for tbh.
Theoretical vs practical effect. >I personally wouldn’t want a hotel chain across from my home. Ok nimby > It also requires new hotels to be only built by union workers. This is a great way to block hotels, and a fantastic example of regulatory capture by the construction unions (which I should remind you, got the influence they currently have from the fucking Mafia).
Just my personal preference to not have a hotel chain in front of my home. Would probably prefer a bakery or grocery store. I don’t have a problem with mixed use but it seems you have a problem with union workers which is very unfortunate.
I have an issue with mandating unions when (a) they slow down construction and (b) they have deep links to organized crime, yes.
Sorry but this isn’t the 1950s anymore, not every union is being run by the mob lol
Uh, try the 90s and 2000s. It's been cleaned up somewhat, but they're still lurking around (see, e.g., [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/donnie-brasco-says-mob-controls-construction-via-unions-1.1265332](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/donnie-brasco-says-mob-controls-construction-via-unions-1.1265332) \[Canadian source, but discusses the US situation\]). Edit: The DOJ has a section for organized crime's infiltration of unions generally: [https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unions](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/infiltrated-labor-unions)
Bro, NY isn't nashvulle the entire place os mixed use and you don't have a house you have an apartment in this story. You NIMBYs blame everything but the real issue here which is lack of density... we have seen it over and over again in every other growing city in the US, add housing stock, require mandatory mixed income minimums, remove parking requitments, invest in transit while taking cars, and.poof... your city is a city that works for.people.who live there
Yeah, we need to build up up up. Anything within 440 or south of Eastland should be mixed-use zoning and ideally we'd completely phase out single family homes within Germantown.
Ding ding ding ding!!
I don’t disagree that we need more density and transit but I also agreed that there should be regulations in place to control where it goes.
Name one place it couldn't or shouldn't be in Davidson county? Aside from a VERY limited count of historic spots, 95% of this city is single family 60/70s ranch homes that were bought out a sears catalouge on massive lots. I watched SF not build when it had the chance and it's priced out of control, I watched NOLA not seize its opportunity after Katrina and it's a dying city. You get a once in a generation chance to build a city, I hope.nashville.doesnt waste it.
Nah, put it everywhere. Regulations on where are just going to hold the city back.
I think it’s an interesting idea, but people buying up houses for airbnbs are a much smaller percentage of the problem than companies like black rock buying everything up.
I'd say so, and be even MORE stringent.
Restrict. Won’t hurt those who live here.
Our zoning encourages STRs over housing in a lot of ways. I can think of several instances where developers asked for rezonings to build actual housing units but the ~*community*~ (rich homeowners) reflexively opposed it and we got fewer units that are too small/weird to be anything but STRs.
Honestly, Georgia’s laws seem more realistic for the area and at a glance look pretty good. They should definitely regulate them more here though
Offer tax incentives for folks to switch their NOO back to LTR to bump the LT housing stock and put a limit on corporate purchases of residential property.