Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law • Hacker News Board

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#51

Post by fiblye » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

poisonarena wrote: post #3

I understand all the ramifications in certain cities where the housing prices are getting effected by airbnb, but I think in this case it is just the Hotels strong arming because they were losing business and the Olympics are coming. I am a budget traveler and low income remote worker and I really am glad I got to slide in before airbnb got shafted. It's a shame that I now have to choose between hostels and overprice…

A lot of people don't notice it, but Japanese apartments and houses have paper-thin walls with no insulation. People may think they're being quiet because they don't hear the person next door (since people generally live here knowing that they should avoid being noisy). But no, blasting music from your phone speakers, stomping around in your boots, throwing your bag on the floor, and sparking up a blunt is shit everyone hears. Yet try politely telling someone they're being a little loud and they get pissed because there's no way you heard their 2AM phone argument while they're drunk and blazed as fuck.

If the apartment next to me ended up being an airbnb spot here in Japan, I'd do whatever I could to either get the renter evicted or move out. I have too much experience with people having zero self-awareness when they come to Japan, and I couldn't possibly deal with having new people coming in twice a week and trying to explain that yes, you are indeed noisy as fuck, and yes, people actually don't party 24/7 in this country because some people do work.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#52

Post by gwbas1c » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #40

Razengan wrote: post #28

This Redditor offers one plausible cause/reason [0]: > This may not be a popular opinion here but I totally understand the concern. There had been a huge increase in transient international visitors being introduced to residential areas that previously did not have to deal with that. Having a constant stream of strangers coming and going in your building is not something many residents feel comfortable with. Also: >…

That's a valid concern. But seems to be something better handled by local ordinances and not the sort of thing a national government shoulf need to drop the hammer down on... In my opinion.

Japan is much smaller than the US or the EU.

IMO, there are certain advantages to regulating things at a higher level. It's easier for AirBNB to comply with one set of rules instead of many. An individual in Japan can take advantage of a single, well-written how-to guide instead of learning his or her local laws.

That being said, where I live, I made sure the HOA explicitly forbids AirBNB-style rentals.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#53

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #34

bradleyjg wrote: post #2

Maybe now they can start complying with New York law.

New York doesn't enforce double parking, jaywalking, and other "good neighbor" and safety laws. Why is this one special?

> New York doesn't enforce double parking, jaywalking, and other "good neighbor" and safety laws

I am not disturbed by double parkers or jaywalkers. I was disturbed by unit 4F and 7B's weekly round of "drunk Europeans screaming in the hallway at 3AM".

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#54

Post by denzil_correa » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #25

fredley wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the approach taken in London: Anyone can AirBnB their property, but only for 90 days a year, unless you have special permission. This prevents people buying up/renting flats just to let them out on AirBnB and putting pressure on the already cripplingly bad housing situation.

Isn’t this just ignored largely?

I guess a size-able fine to both AirBnb and the apartment renters with repeat offences to be considered as criminal may help.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#55

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:23 PM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #40

Razengan wrote: post #28

This Redditor offers one plausible cause/reason [0]: > This may not be a popular opinion here but I totally understand the concern. There had been a huge increase in transient international visitors being introduced to residential areas that previously did not have to deal with that. Having a constant stream of strangers coming and going in your building is not something many residents feel comfortable with. Also: >…

That's a valid concern. But seems to be something better handled by local ordinances and not the sort of thing a national government shoulf need to drop the hammer down on... In my opinion.

[deleted]

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#56

Post by elefantastisch » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:24 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #25

fredley wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the approach taken in London: Anyone can AirBnB their property, but only for 90 days a year, unless you have special permission. This prevents people buying up/renting flats just to let them out on AirBnB and putting pressure on the already cripplingly bad housing situation.

Isn’t this just ignored largely?

In a way, that's fine. You don't need to prosecute all offenders for a law to be useful. The law gives you some way to shut down bad operators which otherwise would be difficult to stop. Compare tax law. By law, anyone profiting from illegal activity has to report it as income on their taxes. This isn't because they actually expect anyone to report it, it's because it gives another avenue for prosecution.

It's worth noting that this distinction between who technically isn't complying and who will actually get prosecuted is a big part of why people have such different feelings about GDPR. Some people are focusing on the difficulty of complying and the penalties that could be assessed; others are focusing on the unlikelihood of small, mostly-compliant, well-meaning operations being targeted.

Also worth noting, this kind of selective enforcement can absolutely be used in a harmful way or have unintended negative consequences. I'm just trying to point out why a jurisdiction might pass a law even if they don't expect anyone to abide by it.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#57

Post by paulsutter » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

Airbnb’s statement is disingenuous. They state the rule clearly then claim surprise it’s being enforced:

> hosts are required to register their listing and display a license number on their listing page by June 15th in order to stay active on our platform...

> Unfortunately, the Japanese government issued a sudden announcement on June 1st instructing any host without a license number to cancel upcoming reservations that were booked before June 15th–even though many of these hosts are actively engaged in the registration process or awaiting their license.

From: https://press.atairbnb.com/supporting-travelers-in-japan-aus...

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#58

Post by Retric » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #45

fredley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK the limit is on AirBnB's site directly. Your account is limited until you provide documents from the council. I don't know to what extent people are forging these documents though.

"Apartment #1A, #1B, #1C..."

Seems easy enough for someone to report an apartment to Airbnb and then the 'owner' is stuck.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#59

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

jorvi wrote: post #11

lovemenot wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. There's effectively never been Uber or similar in Japan either. People just respect regulations and they generally do work very well.

I'm European, and in general I like (well thought out) regulations, but in the case of the taxi industry Uber is actually not a bad guy but a huge blessing. In a lot of countries (80%+) taxi drivers are rude, try to price gouge, try to scam you or try to take longer routes. Uber takes all of this away. The rating system ensures drivers are polite. The estimate € (plus route tracking) ensures they don't take the sceni…

> in the case of the taxi industry Uber is actually not a bad guy

Pre-Uber New York City taxi cab story time!

Rewind lots of years. I am living on 30th & Madison. One of my roommates is an immaculately-dressed Brown graduate and young executive. Every few days, he makes an odd request of me: Can I hail him a cab? Why? Cab drivers routinely ignored his hails. The probable cause? He's black.

Add to that "busted" credit card readers, refusals to drop off outside Manhattan and cell phone use. (San Francisco, Paris and Las Vegas were similar.) Note: yellow cabs have become much better since Uber.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#60

Post by icebraining » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #47

jorvi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm European, and in general I like (well thought out) regulations, but in the case of the taxi industry Uber is actually not a bad guy but a huge blessing. In a lot of countries (80%+) taxi drivers are rude, try to price gouge, try to scam you or try to take longer routes. Uber takes all of this away. The rating system ensures drivers are polite. The estimate € (plus route tracking) ensures they don't take the sceni…

> they are absolutely top notch. It's easy to be top notch when you don't have to pay all the expenses you incur. By offloading all of their infrastructure costs onto their employees (that is, the cars and the phones), they can operate very cheaply. But it's not because the service is cheaper, it's because they're avoiding their bills.

What are you comparing to? In NYC, for example, these cost were always offloaded to the drivers - they had to pay to rent the car/medallion for the shift:

"The average rate a cabbie paid to take a taxi out for a 12-hour shift climbed 11 percent, to about $85, between 1990 and 1993, based on the most recent figures available from the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission."

($85 in '93 is about $150 today)

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/09/nyregion/driving-a-taxi-d...