Why Voters Should Vote No for the Municipal Question 1?

Sokaina Zouak
Nov 4 · 5 min read

Referring to Airbnbs, there is an ongoing debates on these short-term rental properties, should be restricted even further or not. Voting ‘YES’ would be in favor of implementing many more restrictions and regulations on Airbnbs in Jersey City such as banning subletting, which is renting your apartment with the landlord’s permission, and a vote ‘NO’ would not affirm these new regulations that would require Airbnbs to have permits which will make the process much more difficult. In doing so, a vote no would also put the many jobs that have been created in jeopardy. Airbnb job opportunities being created such as cleaners, maids, and labor workers it helps my community where many are unemployed seek employment. And gives some have former disadvantaged black and hispanic convicts seeking opportunities to rebuild their lives and where it is hard to find a job nonetheless, one like the ones many Airbnbs hosts in my community provide with a decent pay and a more consistent wage. According to PSMAG, “Airbnb offers hosts the opportunity to advertise that they have taken the “living wage pledge” by committing to pay a living wage to the cleaners and servicers of their properties.” A vote ‘No.’ would protect the Jersey City residents who are being helped with it to make a decent living with Airbnb that is would be difficult to be afforded anywhere else.

Considering the many economic benefits and opportunities Airbnb provides to growing cities like Jersey City, voters should vote no for Municipal Question 1. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Airbnb helps cities by having travelers increases economic prospects within cities. This in turn, benefits small businesses because the guests that are attracted by Airbnb tend to stay longer than traditional tourists which lead them to also makes them spend their money more in the neighborhoods they stayed in. As well as, it provides more jobs and services for those to locals to be employed to help carry out this service. Airbnb also affords hosts to the ability to diversify into short term rentals. There are already regulations in place for Jersey City short-rentals, (a 60-day limit, and a 6% tax) that suffices, more of them will make the Municipal Question not a regulation but ultimately a ban. Which is why we should not implement changes regarding Airbnb short-term rentals and let the regulations already established work for themselves.

What has been done about Airbnb’s in other places?

It has been shown in many other towns, cities and countries Airbnb has helped employ hundreds of thousands of people. According to a NERA Economic Consulting study, “Airbnb supported 730,000 jobs and $61 billion in global output,” Airbnb’s is supporting economies by providing jobs, many of which are blue collar jobs. In many lower income towns in New Jersey like Atlantic City, where the median salary is only about $26,000 a year and an unemployment rate of 6.4% now down from 12.5% in February 2017, short-term rentals are creating jobs like cleaning and many other services available for locals. The vote ‘No’ is joined by the Jersey NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), Carpenters Local 25 among many other organizations. According to the Hudson County View. “The Jersey City NAACP is claiming that the new regulations implemented… “By targeting the 70 percent of Jersey City residents who are tenants — the majority of whom are people of color — this ban amounts to nothing more than economic discrimination, plain and simple.” This demonstrates the Municipal Question 1 is a ban that will not only hurt Jersey City residents as individuals but be target for families of color.

Why might there be some people arguing against this?

In spite of this, there are some arguments on why residents may vote YES. For instance, one could argue, a vote ‘Yes’ would imply that externalities will be limited like renting will be much cheaper. However, Airbnb is not mainly who to blame for higher rents. According to Jersey Digs, “Letter to Editor: No, More Airbnb Regulations Won’t Solve Jersey City’s Woes… The reality is that there are 48,617 apartments that are either planned, proposed or under construction at the current time which is a total of 84 buildings. Out of those 84 buildings, only 1 building is affordable housing with a total of 126 apartments.” These shows that are many vacant apartments and houses in Jersey City due to the new developments, more supply means less demand so there so much supply that can be fulfilled all at once that instead of waiting and competing for them to be all listed for long-term at once it is much easier to be rented for short-term. And due to the recent property tax revaluation, in some neighborhoods taxes had a skyrocketing increase of nearly 75 percent as stated by CBNC. Jersey City being affordable again and easy to live in once vote ‘NO’ is being passed is a complete misnomer. Instead, we should be proposing more affordable housing acts within these newly developed buildings and apartments to fulfill the demand of the rising rents costs for lower to moderate income residents and argue for lower property taxes that will stop rents from having to be increased.

Why do we need Airbnb’s? And how to the benefit many local residents?

Airbnb is presenting local businesses within the area better opportunities. According to BBC, “Airbnb can help accommodate more tourists and drive new customers to businesses in primarily residential areas.” It is also important to note that most Airbnb hosts are not all millionaires or billionaires who are making a fortune out of Airbnb — they are typically people using short-term rentals to help to make some extra money to my ends meet too. According to Airbnb, “52 percent of Airbnb hosts live in low to moderate income households, 48 percent of the income hosts earn through hosting on Airbnb is used to pay for regular household expenses like rent and groceries, and 53 percent of hosts report that income earned helped them stay in their homes.” A vote NO would benefit all these Jersey City hosts who are residents who are being helped by Airbnb to make ends meet. A vote YES will be detrimental to Jersey City families, as many rely on it already. Voters should vote no for Municipal Question 1 because Jersey City already has regulations in place for Airbnbs. And this would just serves as a ban that will hurt Jersey City families. We should go with other alternatives like affording those residents affected by raising rent costs to be able to get affordable housing opportunities in newly developed areas.

References

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-economic-costs-and-benefits-of-airbnb-no-reason-for-local-policymakers-to-let-airbnb-bypass-tax-or-regulatory-obligations/

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45083954

https://psmag.com/.amp/economics/what-airbnb-does-to-cities

https://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2017/NERA_Airbnb_Report_2017_03_13_final_revised.pdf http://www.airbnb.com

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/your-property-taxes-just-jumped-by-more-than-50-percent-now-what.html

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade