New data suggests that thousands of listings violate even the current weak law
By Tim Redmond
NOVEMBER 2, 2015 – While protesters occupied Airbnb’s headquarters at lunchtime today, the latest data shows that the vast majority of units rented out through the company are not rooms in apartments or flats but are entire buildings.
InsideAirbnb reports that as of Nov. 1, 57.4 percent of the San Francisco listings on the site were entire houses or apartments.
More than 75 percent of them had “high availability,” meaning more than 90 nights a year.
That strongly suggests that a majority of the units listed this week on Airbnb violate the city’s existing law – which, the evidence shows, clearly can’t be enforced:
Entire homes or apartments highly available year-round for tourists, probably don’t have the owner present, could be illegal, and more importantly, are displacing residents.
Existing law bans any use of houses or apartments as STRs for more than 90 nights a year unless the person listing the place also lives there. In other words, you can rent out that spare bedroom in your house – while you are at home – as much as you want.
But that seems to be a small minority of the listings.
It shows why Mark Andreessen sounds like such an idiot in the New York Times:
As Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and philanthropist who invested in, among other things, Twitter and Airbnb, put it in a Twitter post: “Thanks to Airbnb, now anyone with a house or apartment can offer a room for rent. Hence, income inequality reduced.”
Huh? That’s not what’s happening at all. In San Francisco, those listings are just a fraction of the total.
Instead, since anyone with an apartment building in San Francisco can apparently evict all the tenants and turn the place into a hotel, with impunity, income inequality is greatly increased.
UPDATE: Even the head of the city’s Office of Short-Term Rental Enforcement says that most current Airbnb listings are illegal:
According to office director Kevin Guy, most San Francisco listings on Airbnb are probably in violation of current law.
Guy said his staff of four people is prioritizing the “most egregious actors,” such as those who post multiple properties on sites such as Airbnb but don’t live in San Francisco.
That’s just the worst of the worst. The rest, apparently, will just get away with it.
It’s amazing how if you plot a lot of large dots on a small map, you can make things look scarier than they really are.
Fines would be levied against the people listing on your site and nobody would use it.
Your comments are very interesting. Anyone who says that 2000 additional units is nothing is not looking at how many units are available at any given time. Most living units are occupied, so having an extra 2,000 (if that really is the number) would make a larger difference immediately, while also provided more units to the rental pool. Like some of these comments suggest, the problem is multi-faceted. Really it all comes down to the size of the city… what is the city-county size, something like 47 square miles?
I agree with this
Please cite your source by posting a link. Anyone can say Inside data and throw numbers out there.
All the data in the world couldn’t force evil San Franciscans (you know, the one who actually live in the city) to vote against a service that they actually use, to rent rooms in their homes and when they travel abroad…I saw somewhere someone say people can draw a line between a company and its employees and the service it provides (because it benefits them). It’s a lesson hopefully people will learn from this….
Can I assume you are neither a Libertarian or GOP?
Just because you can not discern a reason for complaint doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
And I’ll admit there’s a fair amt of whining.
Sometimes I’m amazed by this blog where people seem to be literally talking past one and other.
What must really suck is to be the all-seeing arbiter in this mess.
“income inequality is greatly increased”.
So if you are pining for income diversity, why are you whining and income inequality? Solution? kick out all the poor people, no income inequality.Problem solved.
Dear Tim. It’s great to finally see some numbers! However, there is still a scale missing. 57.4% of homes equals how many total homes? If this number is 10 then addressing this problem will not have an impact on SF housing. If this number is 10 million, then it might. If you have a chance to give us the total number of SF Airbnb units it would be very helpful. Also, I’m confused by your sentence “In San Francisco, those listings are just a fraction of the total.” If I understood the rest of your article correctly, then the “fraction” is 100% – 57.4%*75% = 57.0%. This “fraction” appears to be a “majority”. Unless I parsed the sentence incorrectly? Please advise.
Anecdote^
Just because someone works in SF does not mean that they have to live there. Half a million SF workers live outside the city. Sounds like you should too.
Wow, you really are a Libertarian dreamer. Good luck figuring out how to evict everyone who does not earn as much as you think one must to live in SF. Oh and good luck finding people that do not earn your magic number to work here and serve your coffee, clean your flat, teach your kids etc. etc. They are all getting priced out if not for rent control. As for you, I am done. I do not converse with such people as yourself. I find no value in your opinion.
It is inherently selfish to expect to live in a city that you cannot afford by having someone else subsidize you, yes.
How much rent you have paid is irrelevant. You had a subsidy if, at any point, you had a rent that was less than market.
If you cannot afford a market rent, then on what basis do you deserve to live here more than someone else who can afford it? What do we the community get from having you here?
So you assume everyone in a long term rent controlled building can afford market rate, but are just selfish?
I do not get a subsidy pal, I have paid well over $400,000 since I moved in in rent.
But I suppose you figure since I cannot afford market rate, I do not deserve to live here anymore huh?
If we were talking about TRULY affordable housing, I don’t think the Mission activists would object to it, and it would not cause gentirication, or cause their rents to rise, or them to be evicted.
Agreed. That is why the terms left-wing and right-wing aren’t helpful. The left wants to micro-manage the economy and the right wants to micro-manage your personal life
Better for the government to keep out of both
There are few people more selfish than a rent controlled tenant demanding a life-time subsidy.
The voters elected the representatives who passed Ellis and who rejected changing it.
Anyway, even if you could repeal Ellis, it won’t achieve much unless you can also repeal Costa-Hawkins, and that will never happen
These kinds of one liners mean little and say nothing.
This is about the people who only care about themselves and care nothing about public policy that helps all.
Though the most selfish do tend to be GOP or Libertarian.
Bullshite, you mean. We all micromanage ourselves. We micromanage our desires to kill people who make us mad, grab stuff we like, and force sex upon those we find attractive. We wear clothing now because the law demands it. The fact that the law requires us to do these things does not change the fact that we micormanage our own desires and behavior. If we didn’t no rprson system in the would would be big enugh.
Seems to me that most of the whining is people whining about Airbnb!
A tenancy of more than 30 days is not a short-term let, so I have no idea what you are talking about when you claim that 90-day stays being illegal. I can rent a unit for 40 days as many times as I want.
The thing is, what is best for public policy and what is best for LANG might not always be the same thing.
We will erode Ellis, watch.
If someone bought a multi unit building that is not rent controlled, then they have EVEN LESS of a reason to whine. But they do.
You naive little waif. Calvin does not do sign holding. The little people hold signs.
again cry me a freaking river. Fine, ellis and sell, as a TIC. But STOP WHINING!
And STRs over 90 days if you do not live are ILLEGAL NOW. But I am sure you figured out loopholes that enable you to AVOID CURRENT LAWS. Because only your bottom line is important in your world. No one else matters.
You “interact” by getting frustrated & angry and voting for Prop F.
Not, ABnB needs to be made small enuf to drown in a bathtub. (Sorry, Ron).
Or maybe the rents were decant when they bought it but after a decade or two, they no longer pencil out.
Or maybe the tenants started behaving badly, and the owner decided that he know longer wants to deal with the hassle.
Or maybe the owner became sick or disabled, and wants to sell as TIC’s to provide for care and long-term financial security
There are lots of reasons to Ellis, and the law supports that as it should do
I think he’s talking about the proposed new law; which is a change from current policy, and certainly has tighter regulation. Regulating and enforcing are not the same thing.
You don’t leave units empty when you Ellis. You sell them as TIC’s.
All STR’s are not illegal. Some are. Some are not. There are ways to do it that finesse the regulations.
The real problem isn’t the owners of buildings but rather the laws that make some of the buildings non-viable as businesses. That inevitably leads to the tenants being evicted that the use of that building being changed.
Maybe they didn’t buy a rent controlled building.
Tim has written about this several times. But mostly from the point of view that those vacant units don’t exist, or how LLs really are making a profit- just not a killer profit, or that its really the poor tenants who are suffering.
(ps: don’t EVER wish rent control on post-79 units. You do understand that that exemption is to tell developers “don’t fear – you’re in the clear” so they don’t stop building new rentals (even though they did stop, for a long while). Rent control is not your friend, so don’t spread the misery.
I’ve heard from people in the Administration that Mayor Lee is open to suggestions about how to help small prop owners bring these units back on the market. They seemed interested in a “State-rules-only for those who rent at half the market price”; which might cut into your income,. but would give you your freedom (and give a few tenants a break as well)
What a nice neighbor you are. And how refreshing to see that you consider public policy with all in mind, I mean, being selfish is such a bore.
So enforcing the law is micromanaging? In your opinion?
So if you do not consider yourself progressive, what are you? Republican? Libertarian? Please, do progressives a favor and do not imagine you can speak for us as though we are a monolithic unit.
Of course they would. Especially if some where BMR, but even at market rate many would be happy to get nearly 2000 more units!
AirBnB is not the only reason we have a housing shortage. Even if we banned it tomorrow it would not be a magic bullet to fix the shortage. But EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS.
Why lose the rental income leaving units empty?
Or are you advocating illegal use of STRs? That is what is happening now it seems. ALL ILLEGALLY
I just do not get people who buy multi unit rental properties and then whine about being a landlord. STFU already.
I see a lot of anti-F people saying that the amount of units held off the market are negligible, but I also hear “even a little bit helps.” I totally agree with that, yes. I just asked Jon where he stood on that. Either 2,000 units is worth something, or it’s not.
Why sell when you can Ellis?
Agreed. In fact I was doing short-term lets over 15 years ago, during the dot-com boom. I was renting out individual rooms for a grand a month to newly-arriving tech workers until they found a permanent place. Everyone was happy – no harm done.
But somewhere and somehow progressives, in their ceaseless zeal to blame someone, have decided that a few people doing short-term lets is the cause of homelessmess and unaffordability. Bizarre.
People who buy rental properties and are now whining. CRY ME A RIVER. If you do not want to be a landlord, sell your freaking rental property and move to a single family home in Tracy or someplace, and go away. I have never seen so many who own multi million dollar properties whine so much.
Tim Redmond, why don’t you write an article–after the dust settles–about how homeowners in San Francisco who have two- or three-unit buildings have stopped renting out the other unit when it goes vacant, because they need control of their lives and homes? Because every time an owner occupant of a 2- or 3-unit building signs a lease with a tenant in San Francisco, that owner is giving the tenant the lifetime right to live with you in your building at a rent that never goes up enough to keep up with expenses and repairs?
Write about how if the tenant works out, great. Fred and Ethel! Let’s make a sitcom!
But if it does NOT work out, the owner is stuck living with assholes, who can invite as many other assholes as he wants to move in and join in on ruining your life. Write about that, and how the owners can never raise rent, truly raise it more than 1% or so per year, and did I mention the owner is stuck with this situation as long as he owns the building the asshole pays his rent on time and doesn’t feel like moving? Write about that, Tim Redmond.
Hey Tim Redmond. Write about how unless you pay lawyers $50,000+ to buy them out, this is your life. With the asshole. Upstairs. And once the asshole does move out, you will never ever ever rent out that unit every again. Please write about how the lack of control has led over 10,000 units in this City to be removed from the housing market. Please write about how–if the law were changed to how it was originally, which allowed this loophole—we could open up these units again. And the TIC Ellis Act juggernaut would be kicked in the balls, at least for a while.
Most people actually do get along 90% of the time, and owner occupant / tenants get along great. But in the rare case when you do end up with an asshole, you can say, Hey you are an asshole, I don’t want to share my house with you, here is 90 days notice, please move. And maybe if you do open those apartments up for rent again, you can also maybe allow the owner occupant to raise the rent 5% to 7% (cap it, but allow basic cost of repairs raises) so the owner doesn’t have to sell out to TIC vultures and Ellis Act Contractors?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING AND THAT IT A HUGE REASON WE HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE IN THIS CITY. Really, Tim. It’s huge.
If the laws were changed for that one fact–allowing owner occupants to decide who can live in the other unit in their buildings–you would have at least 9,000 units on the market tomorrow, most of them rent controlled. And you’d probably have a ton of folks building new two unit buildings so they can live in one and rent out the other, instead of turning it over the TIC vultures and the Ellis oh forget about it you aren’t going to write that article are you.
Your analysis is sensible and well-reasoned and therefore has no business being part of this discussion.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the vast majority of these units were not being used as vacation rentals BEFORE Airbnb existed? Probably not.
Airbnb did not invent vacation rentals. There have been vacation rentals available in this town for decades. Long before the internet. Airbnb is just a bulletin board.
All these studies prove is that Airbnb’s business model – have people rent out spare rooms- isn’t particularly compelling and very few people use it for that. The majority of users were renting out vacation rentals long before Airbnb existed and simply choose to use it as another avenue of advertising their unit(s).
The scenario being played over and over that scores and scores of landlords are converting regular rental housing into STRs is a fiction.
Rarely does that make any business sense.
Vacation rentals did not create the housing crisis and outlawing them won’t change anything.
Bullseye.
Because he was handed this job in late July. He is on the case; I got a notice the other day to update my business license, and everybody on AirBnB’s site is getting them. Shit takes time. Also perhaps we can vote Herrera some funding so he can have a larger task force.
Right, so the existing law is working for you. THAT is how it should work. And the owner will have to pay damages, and you can get existing laws to back you up and find an existing judge to put a court order on the owner. You don’t need Prop F. Noise complaints are real, and bad neighbors are real, and owners have always been responsible for this stuff, and you don’t need ALL THIS WASTED energy on dealing with the nit on the gnat’s nut of a problem. People! The problems are so much larger than this! How about expanding rent control to all post 1979 buildings? How about doubling or tripling the percentage of affordable housing requirements in ALL market rate housing? Imagine if the Prop F forces had gone to all the trouble and accomplished that? My bias is, even if Prop F wins, it means NOTHING.
Airbnb has a purely positive influence on our City. I cannot think of many other companies that help so many people. If you care at all about San Francisco, please vote NO on F.
Airbnb has saved thousands of San Franciscans’ homes by allowing them to make some money with their spare rooms. If Airbnb is banned or
over-regulated, then thousands of San Franciscans will be displaced as
they will not be able to pay their mortgages, property taxes, utilities,
and maintenance.NO on Prop F. Without Airbnb, we will be back in the
2008 era of displacement and foreclosures throughout the City.
Airbnb has saved thousands of San Franciscans’ homes by allowing them to
make some money with their spare rooms. If Airbnb is banned or
over-regulated, then thousands of San Franciscans will be displaced as
they will not be able to pay their mortgages, property taxes, utilities,
and maintenance. Airbnb dramatically improves the quality of life for
all San Franciscans. NO on Prop F. Without Airbnb, we will be back in the 2008 era of displacement and foreclosures throughout the City.
It is not true.
Airbnb has saved thousands of San Franciscans’ homes by allowing them to make some money with their spare rooms. If Airbnb is banned or over-regulated, then thousands of San Franciscans will be displaced as they will not be able to pay their mortgages, property taxes, utilities, and maintenance. Airbnb dramatically improves the quality of life for all San Franciscans. NO on Prop F.
If there are “many”, then how do you know which ones really add to the “problem” and which ones do not?
Aren’t you just guessing?
If an Airbnb’ed unit is vacant, then it will never be affordable. So how does its use as a short-term place make housing less affordable?
This is Election Day pap. Hopes to catch an emotional reaction, and influence people to vote for F. Not much depth here.
Do you mean you are forced to accept a deal you didn’t sign up for (renting in a residential bldg that then changes usage)? This is SAN FRANCISCO, where the rules change over night, and we always screw the outsider (tourists, new arrivals, small fry). Annecdotally, the cops were at my place Sunday, and, no, it wasn’t for an ABnB guest. (see Laurel)
You know, you can list your own unit and move out when someone rents it. I know, cause I do it! It’s called arbitrage. I stay at my girlfriend, or I get a cheaper place for a week-end getaway. Also, it’s listed 150 days per year, because that’s when I don’t have my kids. But it’s rented much less than this, because it’s hard to find a taker for a Mon-Wed stay.
Welcomed by whom?
Mission activists would block them in the streets, because of, well Gentrification et al, right?. Outer Mission activists might roll out a red carpet; because it would help bump density which is a key to small business support and growth.
But 2000 units is – as others have said – not that big a deal in a certain perspective. But with 100,000 more people here this decade compared to last, even a little bit helps. Wouldn’t you agree?
All true but sadly logic long since deserted this issue. The left take it as an article of faith that Airbnb makes people homeless, even though there is zero evidence to support that.
In a way, their rhetoric has worked. I have changed my model of doing short-term lets to immunize it from Prop F. For that matter it was Chui’s more balanced rules that caused that.
But I think it is a shame that there are so many who want to micro-manage what you do inside your own home
Anecdotes don’t count. There are a few Airbnb’ed units on my block and yet all the calls to the cops are about the one building that has long-term rent-controlled tenants in them
Noise and crime can be dealt with if and when it happens, regardless of who is doing it. In my experience, Airbnb guests are very well behaved – much more so than the average SF tenant
Apparently Progressives would not welcome those new units unless they were hopelessly subsidized, which the airbnb’ed units would not be.
The idea of home-sharing is not just that you rent out a spare bedroom from time to time, but also that you rent out the whole place if you are, say, away on vacation. Or living elsewhere for a while.
Surely you know that, Tim?
If 1,908 full units were to constructed tomorrow in San Francisco, would those we welcomed? If so, why?
LOL, the lets would be in SF but the website can be anywhere
Ever heard of the Private Attorney General Act? This is a thing.
(The Private Attorney General Act is a California statute that allows individual plaintiffs to act on behalf of the California LWD. It was brought about because of the lack of funding to the LWD, and any recovery has to be shared with the state of California. This is a model that Prop F follows).
Right: the short-term rental issue diverts sincere passion and energy that should focus elsewhere.
Ignoring that even 10 units taken off the rental market in the crisis is significant, most of us bought or rented apartments in RESIDENTIAL buildings, not hotels. In my building, tenants have had to call the police more than once and the building’s administrator is now suing the owner of an AirBnB unit.
David, I don’t know who you are. But I would ask, have you ever rented an Airbnb when traveling? If not, you should, because it’s awesome. And have you ever rented out your home in order to pay for a family vacation while you’re away? If not, you should, because it’s awesome. I think so many loud voices are against Prop F, because they have used Airbnb and find it kinda awesome.
And on ANY other issue, I am 100% with the angry mobs who march the streets for affordable housing and tenants rights, and higher taxes so we can pay for them. I just think that AirBnb is causing such a tiny sliver of the problem here, that we are barking up the wrong tree. Scapegoating is tacky. If you do the math on that data chart from Inside Airbnb, chronic multiple Airbnb unit rental abuse accounts for less than 0.8% of the available renting stock being effected in the City. And 80% of that is not full time renting.
The real problems are elsewhere, and the energy should be spent elsewhere, and that’s why I’m against Prop F. I also want to be able to take my kids on a vacation and rent out my home while I’m away to pay for it. Is that so bad? Maybe if you had kids who attended public school in San Francisco, and owned your home, and really wanted your family to stay in San Francisco so your kids could have an urban life, you would understand. Take away Airbnb, take away my rights to control my home, and this City loses another long-term family. I don’t want to leave.
Thank you God for posting this sober, non-hysterical look at the numbers. Thank you! It’s the truth.
True, but on such a small scale as to be meaningless. So let’s spend all this energy over-regulating the 85% of small time users who use Airbnb, so we can get at the 15% who abuse it with multiple listings. And oh yeah, let’s obsess over the 400-1000 lost housing units full time, while Rome burns. Idiots! Waste! Fraud!
But information is power and false information hurts. People like Tim Redmond (and Peskin) help create the false perception that Airbnb is a major contributor to the housing situation, and they thereby divert people’s energy from seeking true solutions.
If the Supreme Court declared Airbnb style rentals illegal then maybe about 1,000 rental units would come on line at $4k a month. It might provide some extremely marginable help but there are much more productive avenues that people should be directed to..
Why can’t we give it time to work? You’re all judgey about a situation that legally changed a few months ago, and the enforcement hasn’t been funded.
But also:
My house is on that, and even two listings in my rental building. I know for a fact that nobody in my building is doing AirBnb in my building (I think a couple tried a year or so ago–the tenants and I got together and mutually decided we did not want any and made a house rule), and I also know that my own home is open for a short term rental maybe for a week around Christmas, and some brief stretches in the Summer. Thanks to Airbnb, my working class family gets to take a vacation and put a new roof on the building this year. Without it, we do not.
Which means, I have to extrapolate that this chart is every unit that has EVER been listed on Airbnb. Which I think, also means that most places are not available at any given time. Which means of the 6,000 to 10,000 listings on Airbnb, only a portion are really effecting the housing inventory in this City.
And I still think that over-regulating a tiny slice of the rental market in this City is missing the point, and hurts the majority of regular folks who are using it for extra money. (Only 15% of users have multiple listings; 85% are small time people.) We don’t need to obsess about a thousand or two temporarily lost rentals. We need to obsess about the 10,000 here, and 30,000 there, which are due to other issues. Like rich people having pied a terres, or small time 2- and 3-unit homeowners who occupy their buildings, keeping units vacant because they can’t bear the thought of turning over their homes to tenants they cannot control, or ever ask to leave.
48 Hills is really bad and slanted about accuracy. Other than that, it’s a terrific chart.
Good luck cornering that short term rental market in Macedonia.
Agreed. He doesn’t speak for any Yes on F activists I know and I’ve worked on this issue for nearly 18 months. Never even seen Calvin sporting a Yes on F sign.
The effect would not just be small, but negligible
And even if a few ex-Airbnb places were put back on the long-term rental markets, they would be at market rents, and therefore unaffordable
Because we the people have not indicated that it is a public policy imperative to spend money micro-managing what people do in their own homes
I would create another platform overseas, far beyond the city’s jurisdiction, and give people like you the big finger.
I’ve often wondered that myself.
No it isn’t. It’s one of many, and they all add up.
But AirBNB is sold as THE problem with SFs rental market.
Short term rentals were against the rules for the longest time, and that’s probably a good thing, but they likely didn’t affect the rental market that much. If all short rentals ceased tomorrow, the effect would be small. There are around 385,000 housing units in San Francisco. The 500 highly available, multi listing hosts probably would rent. There are 2,000 total without the multi-listing filter, so 1,500 more. Some would rent; many might go back to being guest units and pied a terres.
Adding 1,000 units overnight isn’t insignificant, but it’s small, less than a third of what the city added to its housing stock in 2014, and it isn’t as if that production had been so rip-roaring.
The best way to add to the supply of housing is to build places for people to live.
@Iamnickel – It might be a factor but the numbers really don’t add up. If you notice in the article above Tim only refers to percentages and not absolute numbers. That is because if you use the Inside Airbnb data you come up with 1,908 full units that are widely reviewed and available on Airbnb for at least 90 days a year. There are about 245,000 total rental units in the city so the 1,908 units = 0.8% of the total. Worth looking at but no, not the reason rents are so insanely high as you speculated.
Also, the city economist pointed out that a full time Airbnb would be way over 90 days, something more like 290 nights (80% occupancy). At 90 nights for $260 a night the AirBnb units only bring in $1,950 a month.
Lastly, even if Airbnb went away completely and the landlords running Airbnb ‘hotels’ had to adjust they CERTAINLY are not going to be offering the apartments at an affordable rate and many might not be put on the market at all.
So yes, it is a factor but nothing near the level that Tim Redmond would want you to believe.
And you sound like someone who is not capable of forming an argument, and so instead finds fault in the messenger. PS. if anyone is willing to pay me I will happily waist my time writing any opinion on any blog as I seem to be doing it for free currently. I didn’t know people got paid. You will of course have to put up with bad grammar and spelling as I missed out on a lot of education opportunities
OK, let’s do that too. No reason we can’t tackle both problems. Tackling this one now will have an immediate effect. Building more will help over time.
If supply is a factor then lets look at home many tens of thousands of units that housing activists in SF have prevented from being built
You sound like a paid AirBnB paid troll, as your sprouting their propaganda.
If this is true, it could be a large reason why rents are insanely high. Supply has been constricted due to airbnb.
the question that has to be asked why isn’t Dennis Herrera and the City Attorney office doing his/their job
I don’t see a legend on the map (what color has what meaning?) and I don’t know how to “interact” with it.
Wouldn’t this imply it’s impact is not effecting the apartment rental inventory,
but instead, the market for single family dwellings which is largely sales and not rentals?
I also highly doubt every eviction in the Haight and Mission became AirBnB’s, as the chart suggests.
If the numbers are accurate, it’s a coincidence. Let’s stick to the logic here…if owners evict for higher
rents, they’re not going to do it so they can gamble on AirBnb occupancy, they want a tenant at higher rent.
Don’t misunderestimate Calvin Welch’s nearly magical ability to tank any ballot measure that he’s associated with.
So the new legislation will rely on one neighbor grassing up another? ’cause the current team can not keep up with the workload. Is this the future of legislation, where will it lead? Is there going to be rewards for informing ICE on un-documented immigrants? Prop F is poorly written and if it does fail it will be because it was not properly thought through
AirBnB needs to be driven out of San Francisco.