fbpx

Author: Stephen Kent

What would George Lucas say about the Hollywood strikes?

Hollywood has ground to a halt amid a united front between the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Writers Guild of America, striking together now for a combined three months. Scripted productions are frozen, red carpet premiers are without stars, and there is no real timeline for when struck studios might be able to return to business as usual. 

While Hollywood’s labor unions lock arms in pursuit of higher pay, better residual deals, and some kind of limitation on the use of artificial intelligence in production, there’s a bit of side-eye being thrown toward those in the entertainment industry who won’t fall in line.

The Chosen, a historical drama centered on the life of Jesus Christ, is carrying on with shooting its fourth season following an exemption granted by SAG-AFTRA. The popular Christian series is a production of Angel Studios, which most notably has been the distributor for the recent hit film The Sound of Freedom — a film that chronicles the dark underworld of global child sex trafficking. 

Showrunner Dallas Jenkins moved quickly to apply with SAG-AFTRA for an exemption from the work stoppage for actors on The Chosen, and it seems that their independent approach to entertainment is paying off. The show’s new season will continue shooting, thanks to consumers who backed nearly $37 million in crowdfunding on the show’s first two seasons. The Chosen has since then made it by on only donations and without licensing deals.

How refreshing it is to see creatives at work, free to build things without the permission of coercive labor unions. Operations such as that of Angel Studios and The Chosen Productions have made huge waves in recent months for their unique faith-based approach to content and for offering their investors a piece of equity in the production companies themselves.

It’s a rarely utilized way of doing business, made possible by a provision in former President Barack Obama’s 2016 JOBS Act, but one you could imagine Hollywood renegades such as George Lucas having longed for when he built the Star Wars empire.

Lucas loathed the Hollywood labor unions. Throughout his rise from underdog film student to box office king, the creator of Star Wars and Indiana Jones had little to no patience for the strictures unions sought to place on his work. One of many clashes occurred in 1980, when for the second time, George Lucas insisted that Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back begin with the iconic “opening crawl” instead of directorial credits. 

In this instance, the credit would have gone to Irvin Kershner, whom he tapped to lead the most critically acclaimed Star Wars film to this day. The unions made their regulation clear to Lucas, and after Lucas sued and took them to court, the visionary behind Star Wars opted to pay the $25,000 fine and resign from the guild. Lucas would always fight the studios and unions in defense of his artistic vision and business priorities.

When you think about how iconic the opening sequence of a Star Wars film is, it’s easy to see why Lucas dug in his heels. “I consider it extortion,” he said of the fight with the guilds.

Years earlier, when Lucas was shooting the first Star Wars film at Elstree Studios just beyond London, he collided with British unions over their stiffly regulated work schedule for stage crews. Lucas is known to be a workhorse and somewhat unempathetic when it comes to the needs of his cast and crew, but the twice-daily mandated tea times at 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. were beyond the pale for the busybody director — not to mention the 5:30 p.m. forced stop time right after tea.

Every member of a film production, from the top of the chain to the bottom, has a cross to bear. For Lucas, it was deadlines and managing the ballooning production budget, and he understood that union concerns were detached from his goals as an ambitious creative. It motivated everything from Lucas’s selection of non-union director Richard Marquand to direct Return of the Jedi to the location of his Lucasfilm compound in San Francisco, buying him physical distance from the studios and industry enforcers he so resented.

Perhaps it was his entrepreneurial and more conservative father, but Lucas never had any respect for the Hollywood patronage system enforced by studios and the various guilds. Despite being a model post-Vietnam liberal Democrat on every other issue of the day, Lucas rebelled his way to incredible success.

Creative work requires truly creative people, and the most successful and innovative creators will always be troublemakers. The false choice created by union-dominated industries is solidarity with your colleagues or less access to opportunity. Unions can serve a purpose and may well be necessary in a town such as Hollywood, where penny-pinching often comes at the expense of the lowest-paid crew members, but the coercive nature of union membership will always undermine any benevolent role they play.

Originally published here

A NEW FRONT LINE: The latest skirmish in the short-term rental wars involves swimming pools.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the potential demise of Airbnb. The homesharing platform deemed innovative by some, and a nuisance by others, has helped to define the public debate over sharing apps that have transformed downtowns nationwide with e-scooters, rented condos and the presence of Uber and Lyft cars on every street corner. Those local debates have been fierce in North Carolina metros, including Raleigh-Durham, Asheville, Wilmington and Charlotte, and have given way to a tenuous compromise in the state between tech companies, homeowners and established players in the hospitality and tourism industry.

But Airbnb’s steep revenue declines, close to 50% drops in Asheville, Myrtle Beach and Austin, show that regulation designed with only one technology in mind will make it harder to adapt as new tech emerges. Look no further than the troubles surrounding Swimply, a pool-sharing app not dissimilar in concept from Airbnb, which is causing a stir in Orange County.

Homeowners in the Chapel Hill-Hillsborough area were served with threatening letters from the Orange County Health Department (OCHD) for using Swimply to rent out their backyard pool by the hour to customers on the other end of the app. Does that transaction transform a homeowner’s private pool into a public pool? Here you see where common sense and regulatory policy don’t overlap.

The OCHD says in its letter, “When an owner or resident of a single-family dwelling opens use of that dwelling’s pool to the general public, especially for rent, they are explicitly expanding the use of the pool to users beyond the private use of the dwelling’s residents and their guests, and the pool is no longer private.”

This language implies that making money from the sharing of your pool is certainly problematic but also leaves room for it to be an issue if you were just opening your backyard gate to anyone looking to cool off for free.

Operating a party house or poolside hangout spot for college students won’t get you a Neighbor of the Year award, but it doesn’t mean you’re running a “public pool.”

The ill-fated argument put forward by Orange County is that a private pool becomes classified as a public one if it’s being rented out on a digital app like Swimply. So, a homeowner near UNC with a quiet, backyard pool that sees a few rental guests per week must then face the same level of code enforcement, chemical maintenance and property inspection as, say, Woodcroft Swim & Tennis Club in Durham, which sees hundreds if not thousands of swimmers a week. It’s ill-fated because this approach to regulation has been tried in other states, such as Wisconsin, where the Department of Health Services was set straight by the state’s Consumer Protection department after pushback from the pool, yard and tennis court sharing app.

Put simply, Swimply cannot be singled out for regulation just because they are not mentioned by name in state law for governing vacation rental properties. In principle, the business model and features of an app like this are covered by the allowances made for private property owners who’ve made use of Airbnb or other apps to generate supplemental income off their property.

An Airbnb host in Burlington could in theory offer their entire home for daily rental, including its amenities: kitchen, laundry, ping pong tables and an outdoor pool, with no interference. That property could see an equal number of guests per week as a Swimply listing, but the only difference is that the Airbnb guests would also be utilizing overnight accommodations in addition to a swimming pool.

Why would it be the business of public health regulators to police backyard swimming, but only for people who will be there for an hour or two as opposed to overnight? This is the question that regulators in Orange County have yet to contend with, and the issue remains unresolved at the expense of homeowners and sharing app users who want to enjoy private pool access during a summer that promises extreme heat statewide. Either the state of North Carolina believes in private property rights and a level playing field for innovation, or it doesn’t.

North Carolina has a workable framework in place for the sharing economy in the longstanding Vacation Rental Act, but it’s going to have to be either modified or supplemented by new legislation to add clarity for property owners and consumers alike who enjoy innovations in the sharing economy. Senate Bill 667 stands as one such piece of legislation that could bring an end to the harassment of North Carolina homeowners by misguided health department officials. The bill, championed by state Sen. Tim Moffitt (R-Henderson, Polk and Rutherford), would in essence preempt localities from banning short-term rentals or imposing onerous costs to listing private property.

No doubt, the measure presents a clash of values for its Republican backers, who on the one hand tend to favor local control as opposed to dictates from Raleigh about how towns should be managed. However, the competing value — that of property rights protected under state law — makes SB 667 a worthwhile consideration for conflicted lawmakers.

Whether it’s SB 667 or something new in a coming legislative session, the legislature owes North Carolinians clarity about their right to rent private property, whether it be backyards, pools, hot tubs, spare rooms or whole single-family homes.

Originally published here

Microsoft, Activision extend deal deadline to Oct. 18

Activision Blizzard and Microsoft agreed on Wednesday to extend the deadline for their merger agreement to Oct. 18 as the companies continue to work on gaining approval from regulators.

“Given global regulatory approvals and the companies’ confidence that CMA now recognizes there are remedies available to meet their concerns in the UK, the Activision Blizzard and Microsoft boards of directors have authorized the companies not to terminate the deal until after October 18,” Activision Blizzard CCO Lulu Cheng Meservey said in a tweet.

The two U.S. companies originally agreed to close the deal by July 18, but U.S. regulatory efforts to block the takeover and Britain’s push to restructure it have delayed the close.

On Tuesday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan rejected a last-minute attempt to stop Microsoft’s $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard.

A group of gamers filed a request asking the high court for an emergency injunction to halt the merger and prevent Microsoft from gaining control of popular games like Call of Duty, Candy Crush and World of Warcraft.

“You can see in this case how fearmongering from the FTC has misled a small number of gamers about the stakes of the Microsoft-Activision deal,” said Stephen Kent, media director at the Consumer Choice Center.

Read the full text here

FTC loses case to block Microsoft Activision $69B deal

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission cannot stop Microsoft’s proposed $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard, a California judge ruled on Tuesday.

The deal, originally announced 17 months ago, can now move forward by the July 18 deadline. 

In her ruling, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said, “Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history,” and “it deserves scrutiny.”

Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox,” she continued. “It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements for the first-time to bring Activision’s content to several cloud gaming services.”

“The Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition, and “the motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied,” Corley added.

The Activision purchase will give Microsoft ownership of popular video game titles like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush.

The FTC wanted to block the deal because the trade regulator believed Activision’s incorporation into Microsoft would hurt competition in the video game industry.

In an interview with FOX Business, Stephen Kent at the Consumer Choice Center, said “Judge Corley showed a deep respect for consumer interest, namely the gamers who will be most impacted by Microsoft acquiring Activision-Blizzard. 

“Biden’s FTC under Lina Khan has shown no interest in consumer protection, as illustrated throughout the hearings and pointed out on the final day by Judge Corley herself,” he said. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.”

Read the full text here

Judge Strikes Another Blow Against Biden’s Activist FTC With Ruling in Microsoft-Activision Merger

A federal judge in California struck another blow against President Biden’s activist Federal Trade Commission chief, Lina Khan, by denying a government request to block Microsoft’s pending acquisition of gaming giant Activision Blizzard.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of California’s Northern District said Tuesday the FTC failed to make a compelling case that the $70 billion deal between the two tech giants would harm consumer choice in the video game market. She denied the agency’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the transaction until it could fight the merger at an internal court.

“The FTC has not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in the console, library subscription services, or cloud gaming markets,” Judge Corley wrote.

Consumer advocates praised the ruling as yet another rebuke for Ms. Khan, one of the more activist FTC leaders in recent memory. A Biden appointee, Ms. Khan has been crusading against what she has called “exploitative,” “collusive,” and “abusive” tactics in the technology industry, using the FTC’s antitrust oversight as her primary bludgeon. Another judge blocked the FTC’s attempt earlier this year to stop Meta from taking over a virtual reality fitness company, Within Unlimited.

“The FTC set out, it seems, to protect the business interests of Sony’s PlayStation, completely ignoring their duty to regulate in the interest of American consumers,” the media director for the Consumer Choice Center, Stephen Kent, said. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.”

Read the full text here

Kennedy Saves You From A Boring Summer

Isn’t it cool when people blend their brilliant ideas with technology? Well, residents in Montgomery County, Maryland disagree and are voicing their concerns over private pools being rented out to strangers looking to beat the heat, by using the app Swimply.  Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center and Contributing Editor at The Washington Examiner Stephen Kent joins Kennedy to discuss the regulations the county will try to put in place to control the “pool Airbnb.”

Listen here

DCA rules for flights is a drag for consumers

Flying into Washington, D.C. is not the best experience. While the D.C. metro area may boast three major international airports, service into the heart of the nation’s capital is sorely lacking. Countless passengers will find that they can’t fly into Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA), nearest to the Pentagon and the famous Washington Mall, and instead must land 30-45 minutes out at Dulles International (IAD) or Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI). Atop the inconvenience of inbound and outbound travel from Washington, D.C., consumers can expect longer flight times, inflated ticket prices, and increased delays. How did it get this way? 

A new analysis by the American Action Forum highlights how Washington D.C. got to be such a mess for travelers. Unknown to many, DCA is the only airport in the country hamstrung by a federal regulation known as a “perimeter rule,” which limits inbound and outbound nonstop flights to a 1,250-mile radius. The airport also contends with a high-density rule called a “slot rule,” intended to manage congestion at DCA. 

As laid out by the American Action Forum, 

“The perimeter rule, established in 1966, restricted non-stop service to and from DCA to 650 miles. The rule was put in place primarily to encourage passengers to use the recently opened Dulles International Airport (IAD) located approximately 30 miles west of DCA in Virginia. The rule effectively limited DCA to serve as a short-haul airport while IAD serves as a long-haul airport. The perimeter was expanded in 1981 to 1,000 miles before being expanded again in 1986 to the current 1,250-mile perimeter. The “slot rule” is a federal regulation to manage congestion at five high density airports: Reagan National, JFK, LaGuardia, Newark and O’Hare. A slot is simply a reservation for an arrival or a departure. DCA is limited to 60 slots per hour.” 

On numerous occasions, Congress has authorized the Department of Transportation to grant limited exemptions to the slot regulations. NYC has gotten to make use of these exemptions more frequently since 2000. DCA Slot restrictions at DCA however, are much less common. In that same time period, only 32 “beyond-perimeter” and 20 “within-perimeter” slot exemptions have been issued to D.C.’s primary airport.

Consumers everywhere should be asking themselves – is Washington, D.C. or any major metro, the same as it was in 1981 or 1966? The needs of travelers have changed dramatically, as has the technical capacity of D.C. area airports who serve them. “The population of Northern Virginia, where IAD is located, has more than tripled since the 1970s,” explains the American Action Forum’s Fred Ashton, “Air travel demand has also increased. Between 1999–2019, the number of passengers carried at DCA increased from 13.9 million to 23.6 million. Similarly, the IAD passenger count went from 15.9 million to 24.3. Even with the three expansions of the perimeter rule over this period, passenger volume at IAD increased by over 50 percent.”

Travelers today find themselves being forced to land 30 miles outside of D.C. at Dulles International, because of concerns in 1966 that Dulles would be underutilized. That world is obviously long gone. Consumers today need more choice, not forced visits to Dulles.  

Population density is not the only thing that’s changed. As of today, 28% of Fortune 500 companies are based beyond the arbitrary 1,250-mile perimeter, approximately double the 14% back when the perimeter rule was instituted in 1966. 

Competition between airports is part of the business, especially in a city with more than one point of entry such as D.C., NYC, Los Angeles or Dallas Fort-Worth. When a traveler is scanning Google Flights for the best way in or out of Washington, D.C., they may not even realize that the option of DCA is made to be more expensive. 

“Because of the restrictions on DCA, fierce competition for flight routes demanded by consumers is lacking, and consequently, ticket prices are higher. A recent study found that Washington, D.C. ranked as the most expensive for all domestic flights and beyond-perimeter flights compared to other U.S. metro-area airports. The same study also found that customers would save approximately $75 roundtrip if their beyond-perimeter tickets were priced at average levels. Moreover, because beyond-perimeter flights into DCA are limited, many passengers must stop at an airport inside the perimeter before reaching their destination. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) highlighted that these “unnecessary connections result in lost time, as 40 percent of beyond-perimeter passengers must stop at least once.”

Removing the perimeter rule at DCA would afford airlines the flexibility to adjust flight schedules to better meet the demand of customers. Potential changes could lead to more airlines creating routes that directly compete for customers and likely result in lower ticket prices.”

The best course of action in the interest of consumers would be for Congress to eliminate the perimeter rule, giving airlines at DCA the ability to offer more flights in competition with IAD. One measure which would be a step in the right direction would be the Direct Capital Access Act, brought forward by Representatives Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Owens in the House and Senators Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) in the Senate.

Explained further by Fred Ashton,

“The bill proposes an additional 56 exemptions, or 28 round trips, to in- and beyond-perimeter flights. Forty of these slots will be given to incumbent air carriers “qualifying for status as a non-limited incumbent carrier and 16 available to incumbent carriers qualifying for status as a limited incumbent carrier at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.” Carriers awarded these extra slots may operate up to a maximum of eight.”

Travel can be stressful enough as it is for consumers without artificially imposed barriers to efficiency and competition in the Washington, D.C. market. The Consumer Choice Center works tirelessly to promote policy that enhances choice, innovation, and abundance in 100 countries worldwide. That’s why we released our own report on the best airport experiences in Europe titled the 2023 European Consumer Airport Index. Zurich, Brussels, and Frankfurt lead the way in Europe for top notch travel experiences, and we’ll be part of the fight to get Washington, D.C. back on track with more competition and better prices for consumers. 

The FTC has lost their bid to kill the Microsoft-Activision/Blizzard deal

It’s a great day for consumer choice worldwide, as a ruling has been issued out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, denying the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt the acquisition of Activision-Blizzard by Microsoft. 

“The FTC set out it seems, to protect the business interests of Sony’s PlayStation, completely ignoring their duty to regulate in the interest of American consumers. Judge Corley called out the FTC on it during the hearings and has delivered a sharp ruling here that will allow the deal to go forward,” said Stephen Kent, Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.” 

<< Read: The Federal Trade Commission’s embarrassing antitrust crusade | by Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center (The Hill) >>

After five days of hearings involving the FTC, Microsoft, Activision-Blizzard, Sony, and Nintendo, Judge Corley pointed out on the final day that the FTC had fallen short of providing a consumer interest to justify blocking the deal, saying “This is about harms to the consumer, not to Sony.”

“The Consumer Choice Center is excited to see gamers win this case brought by the FTC, because they are indeed the real winners in Microsoft coming together with a top-notch game developer like Activision-Blizzard,” added Kent. 

The deal has one more hurdle to clear in the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, and we have confidence that they too will join the rest of the world’s consumer protection agencies in letting the acquisition deal close by its July 18th deadline.

Read the ruling here

The Federal Trade Commission’s embarrassing antitrust crusade

Lina Khan is one of the most radical chairs of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the United States has ever seen. Luckily for consumers, Khan has not been very successful. The latest evidence comes from San Francisco, where Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is presiding over the FTC v. Microsoft & Activision Blizzard’s preliminary injunction hearing.

The suit was brought on by the FTC over its expressed antitrust concerns for the burgeoning cloud video gaming industry. It’s not going well, and it’s because Khan is not guided by the traditional metrics of consumer protection and welfare that have long characterized the FTC’s approach to antitrust enforcement.

Coming off a predictable defeat in court against Meta over its bid to acquire the virtual-reality fitness company Within, President Biden’s antitrust warrior appears to have learned little. The FTC chair’s approach to blocking Meta’s purchase was to harken to an ominous “campaign to conquer VR” by Mark Zuckerberg, based on his previous acquisition of Oculus for the purpose of developing Meta’s capacity for VR headsets.

Where most see these tech acquisition deals as a simple matter of comparative advantage for companies looking to serve consumers better products at better prices, Lina Khan appears to see only the phantom of Standard Oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. It’s why her agency has adopted a more radical posture around antitrust policy, expanding its view of what constitutes unfair competition in a 2022 policy statement to include Yale-worthy buzzwords “exploitative, collusive, abusive” in its framework for identifying antitrust violations. The vagueness is the point.

In the minds of progressives like Khan who romanticize the antitrust battlesof the early 20th century, they’re carrying the banner against predatory price schemes and corporate monopolies. However, in nearly every fight Khan’s FTC has picked with big business (Amazon, Meta, Microsoft) since 2021, Khan has demonstrated what she wrote in the Yale Law Journal in 2017, that, “Animating these critiques is not a concern about harms to consumer welfare, but the broader set of ills and hazards that a lack of competition breeds.”

Khan fears corporate expansion (“powers we oppose”) of all kinds and believes it is the role of the federal government to erect obstacles and throw stones to slow their efforts, even when consumers are voting enthusiastically with their dollars for exactly what the tech sector is offering.

In the case of FTC v. Microsoft & Activision BlizzardKhan’s first week in court has been an embarrassment. At issue is whether or not Microsoft absorbing Activision-Blizzard presents a unique threat to competition within the cloud gaming space. Some video game companies keep their licensed games within the walled gardens of their console, such as Nintendo with access to Mario Kart or The Legend of Zelda. Others license their games cross-platform, such as Activision and their top hit, Call of Duty. For reasons unknown, the FTC has made it their mission to ensure that PlayStation, a Japanese company, has ready access to Call of Duty for its users.

Microsoft has offered a number of long-term licensing deals during this process to display good faith and disinterest in cutting off Sony from its major titles. It’s bad business for both parties. At the outset of the hearings, it was revealed via internal emails from within Sony, the unquestioned global leader in video game consoles and chief advocate of the FTC’s crusade, that they didn’t really care much at all about Call of Duty. In the words of Sony CEO Jim Ryan about Microsoft-Activision, “I don’t want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger.”

Sony is who the FTC is working to protect, and American consumers should wonder why.

If the federal government is trying to block a company from being acquired, typically that company’s stock price doesn’t go up — but Activision’s has. That’s because, for almost everyone watching, it has become clear that Lina Khan’s FTC is not bringing a case to protect American consumers from corporate predation or an uncompetitive marketplace, but instead to merely make their presence known.

This is how chaperons act on a school field trip or middle school dance; they just want you to know they see you. Only in this case, “being seen” means millions in legal fees for all parties involved, including the public, who foots the bill for proceedings. 

It’s trolling on a multimillion-dollar government budget, and while it’s beneath the dignity of an institution dedicated to a level playing field for businesses and consumers alike, it’s very much on brand for Lina Khan.

Originally published here

Pool-sharing battle in Montgomery County is pure liberal NIMBYism

The sounds of summer are a thing of joy for most people. The birds, the splashing, dogs barking, and the neighborhood kids playing outside. Warmth and life return to the streets. But then there are places such as Montgomery County, Maryland . 

The Washington, D.C. , suburb and home to Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg, Rockville, and Takoma Park is a liberal stronghold within an already liberal region. It’s the kind of place where you can spot a progress pride flag in any direction and feel the welcoming presence of signs reading “No Human Is Illegal” every few yards. Of course, this won’t apply if you’re an “outsider” visiting a Montgomery County neighborhood with the hopes of swimming in a privately owned backyard pool.

A fast-growing app called Swimply has been causing a stir in communities nationwide, but most of all on the posh streets of Montgomery County, where residents are voicing anger and fear over private pools being rented out to strangers looking to beat the heat. It’s a “tremendous nuisance” that has “disturbed” residents and led them to call for a local crackdown on the service, which operates much like an Airbnb but for pools. The function of pool-sharing is simple in a world where app-based, short-term rental markets are now a mainstream idea.

Instead of consumers having to shell out $500 per season to access a private community pool, Swimply allows families and individuals to connect with homeowners who rent out their pools on an hourly basis. Rates average between $45 to $75 on Swimply. It’s a pretty good deal for everyone involved.

But then again, this is happening in a neighborhood that infamously sought to ban dogs from barking in 2019. The town of Chevy Chase naively thought it could drop $134,000 to turn a mud pit into a dog park without an outcry from residents, who similarly called it a “nuisance” bringing in outsiders to the neighborhood.

This language feels awfully coded for the 86.7% white suburb in a county where 60% of residents are Democrats and merely 14% are registered Republicans. It’s doubtful the worrisome outsiders they speak of in town meetings are similarly homogeneous. 

It’s understandable that some homeowners find it annoying when a pool party is being held next door. Thankfully, Montgomery County has tools already in place to help residents manage disturbances in their area, such as a web portal for submitting noise complaints. There’s also the bare minimum of neighborly behavior, which is verbal communication and conversation about community matters. The shortcut more often taken is to harangue town council members into banning these services in hopes of making innovations in the sharing economy go away. But they won’t.

That’s because none of this is new, thanks in large part to Airbnb’s success in advancing the commonsense idea that homeowners maintain the right to earn additional monthly income by sharing their property with others, if they so choose. Swimply will most likely win the right to equal protection under the short-term rental policies already in place for bigger players such as Airbnb.

The amenities being offered by Swimply, private pools and now pickleball courts, are already part of what an Airbnb user can enjoy when they rent out a whole property for a short stay. They can’t be denied to a Swimply user under a different set of arbitrary rules.

The wannabe regulators next door can’t decide on what the concern really is. In a letter to Councilman Will Jawando, 36 residents leaned on everything from noise and drownings to dog poop, strains on the sewer system, and, yes, the inherent racism of sharing economy apps as reasons to ban them. On paper, these “In This House We Believe” types aren’t anxious about visiting renters from the inner city; instead they say, “These pools do NOT have to comply with laws covering discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religious belief, etc. This means, of course, that the owners renting these pools will be able to refuse to rent on these bases. Does the County really want to promote activities that are permitted to discriminate?”

No one believes this is their genuine concern.

One of the concerned citizens told the local media about dog parks, “I’d like to be able to sit on my deck and maybe read a book and chat with a friend or have a glass of wine, and the dogs are barking.” Another co-signer to the letter told the Washington Post that she once had to close her window because of occasional noise.

Pool-sharing is just the latest addition to the growing network of peer to peer services that bring so much flexibility, fun, and adventure to the modern economy. It certainly won’t be the last. Consumers love it, as do countless homeowners with private property they wish to share. Let the people swim.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN