Hypocrite Jane Taguchi Proves the Public Has Access to and Walks and Drives on City Streets
Jane Taguchi now has her own commercial attacking airbnb hosting, paid for by hotel industry front group, Keep Neighborhoods First (KNF). Taguchi demonstrates her exquisite photoshop skills with a composite photo of the alleged airbnb house across the street from her. In the photo people can be seen coming and going, with luggage, getting in and out of cars and walking on city streets. That is, she’s aptly demonstrated that in a city there are people who drive and walk and live and breathe. In her composite there’s nothing else going on. Not even anyone smoking a cigarette. She did cleverly include 6 trash cans including four cans on the street, and 2 behind the property fence. (Google maps shows and city policy allows only 2 trash cans on the property). Even with this distortion of the number of trashcans, the airbnb house looks like a beautiful multi-million dollar house in the upscale neighborhood of the Silverlake Hills.
These are not private streets that are being used by the public, they are public streets, the use of which, by ordinary people, coming and going, offends Miss Jane.
And what does Jane do? For a living, while bemoaning the “commercialization” of her street? She runs a commercial graphic arts company OUT OF HER HOUSE ON THE SAME STREET.
While staying in a home long or short term is an essentially residential use of a residential space, Jane (whose front lawn is covered in large signs that may violate signage laws), runs a totally commercial business out of her house, a business that has absolutely NO residential purpose.
It is quite possible that her business is legal, while she claims short term rental hosting to be illegal, but legality isn’t in itself a moral or reasonable argument, and criminalization of honest work has long been a means of marginalizing entire demographics. All it means is that certain commercial enterprises have been allowed while some residential enterprises may not be permitted. Criminalization isn’t moralization, and it’s clear that hypocrite Jane, who has taken to photographing the front yards of her neighbors, has a very skewed ethic when it comes to being neighborly. Tindr and Grindr and match.com must really offend her. Can’t wait to see THAT composite!
Taguchi expresses her extreme entitlement to who can come into her neighborhood– with views of the Silverlake reservoir, a neighborhood of multi-million dollar homes. This is typical of the wealthier land owners in L.A. who have made it repeatedly clear that they don’t think the rest of us should have access to THEIR beaches and THEIR hillsides, even when these roads, beaches and hillsides are public and are publicly serviced. These are the neighborhoods that KNF puts first. This is the alliance, for the most part, of wealthy home owners, the same people who can afford $300 hotel rooms when they go on vacation. The rest of KNF are a few NGOs who claim to be housing rights organizations, but similarly have made no attempt to work with the many senior, disabled, low income, mostly women hosts, while aligning themselves with money and power.
KNF has referred to mom and pop hosts that rent out rooms in their homes, as a “ploy” and a “hoax”, as if all the people bearing witness at city hearings are pawns to be eliminated. KNF claims to be concerned with the “commercialized” airbnb hosts, like the one Jane is upset with, but guess what? That’s not a current airbnb listing, and the host, if we go by the links Jane has provided, is not an airbnb host. If they ever were an airbnb host, they’ve been removed from the listing. The house across the street currently rents for 10,000$ a month, under a long term lease. Wow, housing accessibility exemplified! I hope they are wealthy enough to satisfy her, as she’s on record for saying she wouldn’t want to live in a neighborhood of renters. Wow, how to keep neighborhoods first, Jane!
“If everyone is suddenly a renter, you know, I don’t want to live here anymore,” Jane Taguchi
But the real punchline is that this house isn’t even an airbnb listing!!! If we follow the links that Tagichi provides, it either never was or currently is not an airbnb listing. (And it couldn’t be found on the Airbnb platform, either.) According to Sotheby’s it is now a long term rental at the totally affordable price of $10,000 a month. Yes, you read that right. Hope they aren’t too poor to live among Jane and her neighbors.
While Taguchi and KNF complain that there was ONE FRAT PARTY and they couldn’t reach the owners because they lived a few miles away (because there are no means of communication or transportation to bridge that distance?) Airbnb, unlike most landlords provides a link on their platform for reporting disruptive listings. So that’s a moot point too. Regardless, bnb guests that throw parties, are gone in a few days. Party neighbors are forever and can be much more problematic. Either way, the issue is loud neighbors, in general, and like abusive landlords should be dealt with as such, and not specific to home sharing. (Landlords that use the airbnb platform abusively, will find other ways to violate tenant rights. Making this about home sharing instead of enforcement of housing rights is either misguided or a clever bait and switch.)
So while KNF calls mom and pop hosts a ploy, they front with a wealthy home owner complaining about the legal and public use of her public streets, in a listing that is no longer an airbnb listing or never was in the first place.
For Jane and other home based business owners, this is a very dangerous slippery slope. The hotel industry has its own transparent reasons for wanting to limit home sharing to a supplemental income (at the 90 day cap they “accept” with one listing at a time, for many hosts, that comes to less than $10,000 a year, hardly a living wage, and hosts certainly can’t employ full time workers with steady employment on that income either.) But what is to stop other brick and mortar businesses, multinational corporations and their lobbies, from coming after other home based businesses and demanding that their income and enterprise be limited to what can be earned in a 90 day period with a one client at a time, limit? Jane clearly hasn’t thought this through, because if the city can tell us under what conditions and terms we can house people in our home and for how long, they can certainly impose themselves on other home based businesses too.