This one actually seems to be offering a real service, one that operates within the law, unlike the way Uber, AirBnB and all of those rental scooter companies grew their businesses. I’m not saying there may not be serious problems with it, but I’m not seeing it as inherently evil.
(That being said, even if, somehow, this company is relatively benevolent, the 30 year contracts may well outlive the company, and the successor may be of a different ilk. So the exact details of the contract are really, really important. )
Even with the best of intentions, they’ll still be beholden to investors. Most of the various facets of the gig economy are good ideas in principle that are ruined by dystopian capitalism of start-up’s pseudo-utopianism. What we really need to do if figure out how to implement these useful ideas without the brave new world that has such angel investors in it.
So it’s not that I’m automatically suspicious of Silicon Valley’s intentions; it’s just that the system has exploitation built right in.
I was trying to put this thought together earlier, but you hit it on the head. Consider the fate of the typical rideshare driver; homeowners will be next!
The most likely to be enticed by this are homeowners with a mortgage or other debt obligations, giving them far less practical leverage with Rent the Backyard than any terms and conditions would explicitly provide, while the idealistic founders make bank and head off to start their next company.
That’s what happens when you don’t legalize it. In my (traditionally) non-affluent San Jose neighborhood, this has been going on for decades, but it was all illegal (and half-assed) garage conversions and like Home Depot portable sheds being rented out as “cottages.” Now the quality - and safety - of the “in-law” structures has improved with regulation.
This is what I meant, though not stating it very well. This will appeal to people with more debt etc. It’ll look appealing with the allure of easy money but in the long run will end up ruining more than a few lives.
… may well require the permission of the mortgage company, which will likely be withheld given possible risks to their property from a rogue tenant in the grounds.
Looks like the units are 375sqf. The potential San Jose earnings per month for the property owner is $1740, meaning the total rent for the tenant is $3480. That’s on the high end of rents for studio apartments (of about 500sqf) in San Jose.
The Node units look well-designed and will be brand new, and this might relieve the housing problem in San Jose somewhat, but it doesn’t look like much of a bargain for most tenants.
Even if it were legal I see it similarly as Airbnb as problematic. It gets people to split up their living spaces making living spaces more expensive and smaller cramped conditions more normalized. I don’t like it.
I don’t think it does that, rather it does the opposite. It allows homeowners to not have to rent out a bedroom and instead rent out a freestanding apartment which they don’t have to finance. You could see the small studio as normalizing cramped conditions, or you could see it as the opposite, an alternative to having to live in a room in a house and instead getting your own unit that is just you. This isn’t “the” answer to the housing crisis, but it could be a healthy component - well, if the units aren’t all rented as AirBnBs…
Well i may be more skeptical than Skeptic. Uber sounded like a pleasant way to let people make extra cash on the side too and it became a weird monster. Let’s just say I don’t trust the motives of startups trying to squeeze dollars out of ordinary people.
