Sharing Homes and Beds: Baptist-Bootlegger Coalitions and the Politics of Authenticity in the Regulation of Los Angeles's Short-Term Rental Markets

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q2 URBAN STUDIES Urban Affairs Review Pub Date : 2023-03-17 DOI:10.1177/10780874231162938
Yotala Oszkay
{"title":"Sharing Homes and Beds: Baptist-Bootlegger Coalitions and the Politics of Authenticity in the Regulation of Los Angeles's Short-Term Rental Markets","authors":"Yotala Oszkay","doi":"10.1177/10780874231162938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Platform economy politics reflect a trend of corporations working with civic actors to achieve shared political goals, reconfiguring once adversarial relationships (e.g., management vs. labor, homeowners vs. tenants). Yet theories on urban politics and policymaking often do not account for such “Baptist-Bootlegger” coalitions (Smith and Yandle 2014; Yandle 1983). This article analyzes how the efforts of two competing Baptist-Bootlegger coalitions shaped the 2018 short-term rental (i.e., Airbnb, HomeAway) ordinance in Los Angeles, CA, USA. I argue that a subtly coordinated partnership of housing groups, neighborhood activists, and hotel market incumbents leveraged their individual authenticity and resources to successfully articulate a shared vision with policymakers. Conversely, an opposing coalition of short-term rental platforms and hosts more explicitly combined their efforts under an organizational framework that conflated economic and moral claims; this hybrid organizational identity was perceived as less authentic by policymaking audiences and precluded potentially more strategic forms of organizing.","PeriodicalId":51427,"journal":{"name":"Urban Affairs Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Affairs Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874231162938","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Platform economy politics reflect a trend of corporations working with civic actors to achieve shared political goals, reconfiguring once adversarial relationships (e.g., management vs. labor, homeowners vs. tenants). Yet theories on urban politics and policymaking often do not account for such “Baptist-Bootlegger” coalitions (Smith and Yandle 2014; Yandle 1983). This article analyzes how the efforts of two competing Baptist-Bootlegger coalitions shaped the 2018 short-term rental (i.e., Airbnb, HomeAway) ordinance in Los Angeles, CA, USA. I argue that a subtly coordinated partnership of housing groups, neighborhood activists, and hotel market incumbents leveraged their individual authenticity and resources to successfully articulate a shared vision with policymakers. Conversely, an opposing coalition of short-term rental platforms and hosts more explicitly combined their efforts under an organizational framework that conflated economic and moral claims; this hybrid organizational identity was perceived as less authentic by policymaking audiences and precluded potentially more strategic forms of organizing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共享房屋和床铺:浸信会-私酒走私者联盟和洛杉矶短期租赁市场监管中的真实性政治
平台经济政治反映了一种趋势,即企业与公民行为者合作,以实现共同的政治目标,重新配置曾经敌对的关系(例如,管理层与劳动力、房主与租户)。然而,关于城市政治和政策制定的理论往往无法解释这种“浸礼会强盗”联盟(Smith和Yandle,2014年;Yandle,1983年)。这篇文章分析了两个相互竞争的浸礼会Bootlegger联盟的努力如何影响了2018年美国加利福尼亚州洛杉矶的短期租赁(即Airbnb、HomeAway)条例,酒店市场的现任者利用他们个人的真实性和资源,成功地与决策者阐明了共同的愿景。相反,短期租赁平台和房东的对立联盟更明确地将他们的努力结合在一个将经济和道德主张混为一谈的组织框架下;这种混合组织身份被决策受众认为不太真实,并排除了潜在的更具战略性的组织形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Affairs Review
Urban Affairs Review URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Urban Affairs Reveiw (UAR) is a leading scholarly journal on urban issues and themes. For almost five decades scholars, researchers, policymakers, planners, and administrators have turned to UAR for the latest international research and empirical analysis on the programs and policies that shape our cities. UAR covers: urban policy; urban economic development; residential and community development; governance and service delivery; comparative/international urban research; and social, spatial, and cultural dynamics.
期刊最新文献
Creating Local “Citizen's Governance Spaces” in Austerity Contexts : Food Recuperation and Urban Gardening in Montréal (Canada) as Ways to Pragmatically Invent Alternatives Explaining Value Capture Implementation in New York, London, and Copenhagen: Negotiating Distributional Effects Examining the Smart City Generational Model: Conceptualizations, Implementations, and Infrastructure Canada's Smart City Challenge Celebrating Sixty Years of Urban Affairs Review with a Look at the 1970s and Street-Level Bureaucracy Whose Neighborhood Needs? Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Federal Community Development Funds
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1