In Part 1, we examined the need to explicitly identify the content and the method for discussing a policy issue–to reframe the issue. In reframing, we want to find a value or goal that we share with the other side. We also want to consider the full context–all of the alternatives as well as the pros and cons of each. In this post, we will apply those ideas to short-term rental (STR) issues.
One of the most common justifications for STR bans and regulations is to eliminate “party houses”–STRs that are used for raucous parties that disrupt a neighborhood with loud noise, trash, and excessive traffic.
No responsible STR owner would want to operate a “party house.” Such enclaves would need frequent and costly repairs. And one would alienate neighboring home owners. Because the operators of “party houses” tarnish the industry, the responsible STR owner will want to eliminate them. In other words, STR owners share a value or goal with those who want to ban or severely regulate STRs.
While a ban or severe restrictions on STRs might eliminate “party houses,” there are alternatives. Existing nuisance laws are already on the books in most communities. While the details vary, nuisance laws decree that individuals may not create excessive noise during certain hours (such as 11 PM to 7 AM). Nuisance laws can and often do address trash, traffic, and many of the other complaints against STRs.
In other words, an alternative to a ban or severe restrictions on STRs already exists. Enforcement of existing laws would eliminate the need for any regulation of STRs. “Party houses” would be eliminated (or at least the owners would be punished) and responsible STR owners would remain free to use their property as they choose.
When the issue is reframed properly in terms of a shared goal, those who propose violations of property rights become more open to alternatives that don’t violate property rights. In this example, if the issue is reframed in terms of eliminating “party houses,” then proponents of bans or severe restrictions will be more open to enforcement of nuisance laws. And if they aren’t, then they are being intellectually dishonest.
Admittedly, reframing an issue is not always easy. But if we wish to persuade others and move them closer to our position, we will be more effective if we can identify a shared value or goal and agree to consider the full context.