Opinion
TECHNICIAN
PAGE 6 • THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2019
Raleigh needs to pass regulations on Airbnb For many, the so-called “sharing economy” represents a type of innovation that acts as a shining example of the free market in action: it lowers the price of goods, increases competition and enriches the creators of these Kevin innovations. At face value, Moye Staff Columnist this is exactly what the popular housing rental company Airbnb accomplishes. Upon digging a little deeper, one will find out that this term is actually a profound misnomer. The “sharing economy” is simply a tech-savvy way to extend income inequality by helping out those who are already affluent while sharing the economic burden of this new technology among the people mostly left out by its advantages. A recent cost-benefit analysis by the Economic Policy Institute has highlighted just how harmful Airbnb can be to local economies. Economists determined that the economic
costs from Airbnb are enough to mandate regulations on the company. Airbnb renters are able to circumvent the costs normally associated with hotel lodging because of how these housing units are being taxed. In a city like Raleigh where tourism is popular, Airbnb rentals are in direct competition with hotels. These hotels often cannot compete with the low prices of Airbnb rentals; thus, the amount of overall tax revenue is diminished as hotels are forced into paying less and Airbnb circumvents zoning laws. Airbnb affects the supply of the housing market by converting what would have been longterm rental properties into short-term Airbnb units. A 2016 investigation on the presence of Airbnb in Boston found that for every 12 Airbnb listings per census tract, there was an increase in rent prices by about 0.4 percent. The report concluded that if Airbnb continued to grow at the 2016 rate of 24 percent for another 3 years, asking rates for rent in that city would increase by about $178 per month. The effects of Airbnb are only worsened
when compounded with the already problematic affordable housing crisis Raleigh is currently facing. The use of Airbnb in the city only works to exacerbate this crisis. In the face of price change, the demand for housing will remain the same, because people continue to seek housing in economically prosperous areas. As a result of this inelasticity in the housing market, small decreases in housing supply can significantly raise the price of housing. The company continues to extend inequality because of how effects associated with Airbnb are distributed. The people who benefit from Airbnb are often already wealthy: property owners at the top 20 percent of the economic ladder who rent out their properties or travelers who use mostly inessential funds to pay for Airbnbs. Renters are universally impacted in areas with significant numbers of Airbnb units as the price of housing rises. Raleigh has proposed legislation to regulate Airbnb, but debate on the issue has come to a stall. Currently, it is technically illegal to host one’s home as a short-term rental unit; however,
the Raleigh legislature has decided to not enforce this policy yet as they hammer out more of the details for regulation. The proposed legislation is a step in the right direction, as it would make it mandatory for people who rent out their homes to pay a $208 fee to make up for lost tax revenue. The new legislation also requires there to be a resident living in the unit while it is being rented out to avoid wasting potential long-term renting space. While it is controversial, the legislation would also ban the use of whole house and/or apartment rentals in order to prevent these spaces from driving up the price of housing for Raleigh natives. Raleigh must impose these laws onto the lucrative short-term rental business if the city wishes to shield residents from the economic costs caused by it. It is certainly indisputable that short-term rentals can have positive impacts on travelers and households seeking extra income, but the considerable economic drawbacks brought by them should be enough to move the city towards regulating the industry.
One of my favorite things to do after a long day is unwind with a group fitness class. Recently, I logged on to sign up for my favorite cycling class, but I noticed that the usual time slot was Skye no longer there. Instead, the Sarac slot was replaced with an F45 Correspondent class. Curious because I had never heard of F45, I did some research and found that it is a highfunctioning training class which focuses on functional training and incorporates different exercises, including cardio and strengthtraining. There were several videos on the site, many of which featured loud, upbeat music blasting in the background, with images of people lifting kettlebells and pushing chairs
across a gym floor. The F45 class looked like a lot of fun, but I soon realized that to sign up, I would have to purchase a subscription plan. The class is currently offered at a rate of $50 per month or $99 per semester to NC State students, which is significantly cheaper than the regular rate. However, this is still a lot for most students to afford, myself included. While there is nothing wrong with offering a class that requires a paid subscription, the structure of this class as a regularly scheduled group fitness class is problematic. Currently, F45 is offered six times a day Monday through Friday, as well as three times throughout the weekend. Also, F45 takes place in Studio A in Carmichael Recreation Center, which was previously used for group fitness classes and now used solely for the purpose of F45.
Instead of offering F45 along with the regularly-occurring group fitness classes, F45 should be offered separately. This could make it easier for students who have purchased a subscription to find and sign up for the class, and it would leave the regular time slots for students who are interested in the free group fitness classes. F45 certainly sounds like a great addition to the many offerings at the recreation center, and I would love to try it someday. However, moving F45 to a separate location and time could make room for other fun, exciting classes that don’t require payment or a monthly commitment. Also, removing F45 from the regular schedule could allow more room for other classes to add to the variety of group fitness classes. Classes such as Yoga Sculpt, Power Yoga, Cycle
and Circuits, and PackStrong added variety and fun to the group fitness schedule, but are no longer or rarely offered. If F45 were held at a different time slot, there would be more time available for a greater variety of classes to match different interests and skill levels. According to NC State Wellness and Recreation, the purpose of group fitness classes is to “provide something for every body [sic].” This message of inclusivity is important, as taking part in some form of physical activity is integral to health and well-being, and offering free group classes opens the door for more students to participate in classes and acquire the benefits of physical activity. However, when students are forced to choose between paying for an F45 class or settling for limited options with the free classes, this message of inclusivity is diminished.
F45 classes should be offered separately
Poorly structured class time harms students’ learning Colin McKnight Staff Columnist
I’ve sat through about 30 different courses in my time here at NC State so far. I’ve sat through amazing courses with great instructors who changed the way I learned and looked at various subject matters. I’ve also sat through courses
that, for some reason or another, made me want to pack up my stuff and leave halfway through every class without fail. I’ve still got a few more courses left to take before I graduate, but I’d wager that with all the classes and instructors I’ve sat through, I can differentiate between good and bad classes, and structure is a key element of class experience.
One of the most important aspects of good structure is balance. I’m confident most of us have had classes on both extreme ends of the spectrum: dry, lecture-only courses that feel like marathons to get through, and structureless, free-form classes where the plans for that day’s class are almost never met. I get that there are some exceptions –
for example, 500-student classrooms may need to lean more heavily on the lecture side to maintain order. Those lecture-heavy courses, though, can be detrimental to the learning experience. One analysis of studies found that, on average, traditional lecturestyle classes fail students 55 percent more
CLASS continued page 7
