It's a hunch, for sure. I actually wrote a few hundred words on why I thought so, but scrapped it because it's basically just rationalization rather than based on specific data. The pros and cons of AirBNB have been debated to death on HN for the last few years, so I saw no point in repeating those arguments.
But to flesh it out a bit: the threshold for getting something onto the ballot is around 9500 signatures, while the # of registered voters is in SF is just under 500k. Getting 2% of the electorate to sign a ballot petition on a hot-button local issue is easy in SF.
As for passage, I've written at length before on the conflicting economic interests of landlords, renters, and other property owners, and how SF's restrictive geography leads to the adoption of zero-sum strategies. For a better and fuller explanation; I'd refer you to that long TechCrunch article on SF's housing crisis: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
I predict passage with a healthy margin because the larger problems are rather intractable, but it suits all stakeholders to make AirBNB a scapegoat for the city's structural economic problems. There are a lot of landlords, renters, and property owners who don't like AirBNB for different reasons, and short-term rentals give them something to agree about and lower political tension. Also, everyone knows someone with ludicrously cheap rent thanks to rent control, and punishing people who exploit that for personal gain will be popular (even though the number of people who do so and get away with it is tiny). If the proponents of the measure take out the 'snitching reward' mechanism and instead direct that 30% of the fines go to some popular local hobbyhorse like (much-needed) road repairs, support will probably go up.
Opponents of the ballot initiatives should avoid characterizing it as a dark horse backed by the hotel industry or service workers union, whether or not that is actually the case, but push the Chiu measure instead. Short-term rental proponents have been almost comically tone-deaf about how their arguments sound to people who can't/won't participate in the STR market themselves.
But to flesh it out a bit: the threshold for getting something onto the ballot is around 9500 signatures, while the # of registered voters is in SF is just under 500k. Getting 2% of the electorate to sign a ballot petition on a hot-button local issue is easy in SF.
As for passage, I've written at length before on the conflicting economic interests of landlords, renters, and other property owners, and how SF's restrictive geography leads to the adoption of zero-sum strategies. For a better and fuller explanation; I'd refer you to that long TechCrunch article on SF's housing crisis: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
I predict passage with a healthy margin because the larger problems are rather intractable, but it suits all stakeholders to make AirBNB a scapegoat for the city's structural economic problems. There are a lot of landlords, renters, and property owners who don't like AirBNB for different reasons, and short-term rentals give them something to agree about and lower political tension. Also, everyone knows someone with ludicrously cheap rent thanks to rent control, and punishing people who exploit that for personal gain will be popular (even though the number of people who do so and get away with it is tiny). If the proponents of the measure take out the 'snitching reward' mechanism and instead direct that 30% of the fines go to some popular local hobbyhorse like (much-needed) road repairs, support will probably go up.
Opponents of the ballot initiatives should avoid characterizing it as a dark horse backed by the hotel industry or service workers union, whether or not that is actually the case, but push the Chiu measure instead. Short-term rental proponents have been almost comically tone-deaf about how their arguments sound to people who can't/won't participate in the STR market themselves.