Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cntraveler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 332 posts

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

#101

Post by simonebrunozzi »

fredley wrote: post #23
pjc50 wrote: post #16

Similar discussions are ongoing in lots of cities. In Edinburgh they're trying to pre-empt this a bit with voluntary restrictions: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-4... AirBnb creates "bad neighbours" by putting lots of tourists, some of whom behave badly, in formerly residential locations. It creates a whole new set of absentee landlords. If it were restricted to renting out places where th…

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.

Similar in San Francisco. You can rent a single room (while you're in the house) for longer, but you can rent the entire apartment only for up to 90 days/year.

Not sure whether it's a good solution or not. Mixed feelings about it.

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

#102

Post by Fede_V »

I think this is an interesting and unintended consequence of AirBnB not investing nearly on filtering their users.

AirBnB obviously was interested in getting their product used by as many people as people (growth at all costs) - but this had the effect of getting a lot of young, cost conscious people to take holidays in area that were traditionally residential. While most AirBnB renters are polite and respectful, enough of them were loud, disruptive and ignoring the local rules (for example, tourists in Venice who use AirBnB but ignore the very strict garbage disposal laws) that local residents started dreading having AirBnBs around.

AirBnB is already very strict with landlords: it needs to start being a lot stricter with its users too. They rapidly need to educate their users about how to be good citizens, and that the motto of 'the customer is always right' is completely the wrong way to think about a stay in a residential area in a foreign city. Users should think of themselves as a respectful guest, not an entitled customer.

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

#103

Post by pavel_lishin »

icebraining wrote: post #73
scrumption wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's literally rent-seeking and leeches wealth from the economy, jacking up prices while contributing nothing?

Of course they do - they manage a place that visitors can stay in. Which is why people pay them. And you're clearly not a landlord if you think it involves no effort. Sure, if a society thinks they cause more harm than good, by all means, ban them, but that's a different argument.

But they're not a landlord. They sublease an apartment to others. They clean up after guests and put out fresh towels; they don't do the sorts of repairs and upkeep that must be done between long-term tenants.

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

#104

Post by pavel_lishin »

icebraining wrote: post #97
throwawayjava wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> a person would rent out 10 apartments at $2k/mo and rent them on at $300 a night. > And you're clearly not a landlord if you think it involves no effort. The person described in the original post isn't a landlord.

Tomato, tomato. They still have to manage renters, take care of regular maintenance (cleaning), etc. If anything they have more work than the actual landlord.

There's no way to not make this sound insulting, but do you know the actual work that a landlord has to do?

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

#105

Post by gkanai »

repomies6999 wrote: post #24
badminton1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Japan, citizens will punish you if you don't respect their law (e.g.: by not using your service). One of the reasons of why Uber had a hard time in there initially.

Hmm, I used uber in japan when I was traveling there and it worked quite well. What kind of problems were they having?

Uber has not been successful in Japan for many reasons. 1) the public transportation system is excellent. 2) the taxis are ubiquitous in the major metro areas. 3) the taxi companies have worked together to compete against Uber Japan successfully (Japan Taxi app, etc.)

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

#106

Post by bunderbunder »

ethbro wrote: post #37
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.

That seems reasonable. The social good of AirBnB is lowering the barrier to increase property utilization. Classifying people into commercial and "sometimes" renters makes sense. If you want your business to be bigger, comply with more regulations.

I wouldn't just assume that AirBnB increases property utilization.

Most the full-time airbnb places in my neighborhood seem to be vacant most the time. So I'm not sure it's a way to increase property utilization so much as it's a way for people who move out of town to cover the cost of hanging on to the property even though they're not really using it anymore, but without taking on the same legal obligations that renting the house to a full-time tenant would incur.

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

#107

Post by mercutio2 »

paulsutter wrote: post #85
icebraining wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your opinion on the fairness of the new order is immaterial to whether Airbnb is feigning surprise the rule is being enforced. They are not.

Airbnb gambled that the rule wouldn’t really be enforced by accepting reservations past the 15th for unlicensed units, their gamble didn’t pay off, and now they’re pretending to be surprised. Yes that’s the aggressive stance when 80% if units are at stake, but it’s Airbnb who is inconsiderate of renters here. They accepted reservations that were bound to be cancelled.

[Edit]:

I have just read AirBNB’s response, stating that they ARE cancelling reservations, in a rolling 10-days-out fashion.

The linked [cntraveler.com] article is wrong. So, paulsutter is right, it is disingenuous for AirBNB to have allowed those bookings knowing the law would go into effect on June 15th.

And I personally am screwed, crap.

Leaving original for posterity

[pre-Edit]:

Huh? Did you read the article?

They specifically say that existing reservations are not cancelled.

Good thing for me, too, because I have three different existing AirBNBs booked in Japan after June 15th.

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

#108

Post by geebee »

There's a lot of emphasis on bad behavior from Airbnb guests, but I think that's only part of it. Another big issue is that formerly residential communities often resist the conversion of housing that used to host neighbors (and especially kids) into short term tourist rentals. The pressure, and controversy, is especially intense in areas that are largely residential but immensely popular with tourists. The French quarter of New Orleans, the left bank of Paris, many neighborhoods in San Francisco and New York, places like that.

The problem is that "spare" bedrooms (as Airbnb likes to call them) are far more lucrative used as short term tourist rentals than as a living space for kids, who cost a bundle and don't generally pay much in rent. The pitch Airbnb makes is that people have a spare bedroom lying' around and why not rent it out? But the thing is, people start to acquire properties with spare bedrooms for the purpose of having one to rent out - or entire housing units. When this proceeds apace, former communities - which in places like the French quarter are already primed to protect themselves from too much conversion into tourism stock - come to see Airbnb as an existential threat.

Even if the Airbnb guests are well behaved, this fundamental difference won't go away. Think of it this way: some people would like to trade their right to run a hotel out of their house in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that their neighbors won't either. That means severely restricting Airbnb.

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

#109

Post by svennek »

jorvi wrote: post #61
krapp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In a lot of countries (80%+) taxi drivers are rude, try to price gouge, try to scam you or try to take longer routes. Made up percentages don't count as credible data, unless you can cite the objective and peer-reviewed analysis that demonstrates that over 80% of taxi drivers are "rude, try to price gouge, try to scam you or try to take longer routes," you're just trying to disguise your opinion as fact. Which is fi…

> Made up percentages don't count as credible data, unless you can cite the objective and peer-reviewed analysis that demonstrates that over 80% of taxi drivers are "rude, try to price gouge, try to scam you or try to take longer routes," you're just trying to disguise your opinion as fact. There is little to no such data, but we can extrapolate from two things: 1. Uber, Lyft and co. would never have grown globally a…

> Uber, Lyft and co. would never have grown globally at such an astronomical rate (and eaten the taxi branch its lunch) if there wasn't a large demand for a 'clean' taxi experience

In my country the main selling points of the pirate-taxis (and they have been judged that by the courts) was a fare half the price.

They do that by skimping on things that real taxis need (by law), for example customer insurance (private insurances don't cover passengers, if they paid anything to drive with you), professional level drivers licenses, multiple yearly DMV checkups, sick pay to the drivers, maximum daily driving hours, taxes etc.. ...

We know for a fact (due to the court ordering Uber to give the data to them) that the biggest Uber earner in in Denmark took home just shy of 590 thousand dkk (93k USD) in a year. A real taxi needs to have revenue like that in a quarter to have any chance to survive...

I drive 50+ trips per year (mostly in Copenhagen, but also a few in other european cities) and sans 1 (one) slightly bad experience in the 5+ years, I don't see how the Ubers are better (other than cheaper). I took around 20 uber-rides until I went back to the taxis...

I do welcome the kick in the butt, that Uber gave the taxis, as multiple new taxi concepts have risen (all real, legal taxis btw).

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

#110

Post by icebraining »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #104
icebraining wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tomato, tomato. They still have to manage renters, take care of regular maintenance (cleaning), etc. If anything they have more work than the actual landlord.

There's no way to not make this sound insulting, but do you know the actual work that a landlord has to do?

I should hope so, since I'm one. We own two apartments which we rent out, one of them on AirBnB, and handling the reservations, receiving the guests, giving them tips on how to navigate the city, constantly cleaning and replacing linen, etc, is way more time consuming than the occasional maintenance we do on the other apt, which is rented long-term.

Why? What am I missing?

Post reply on HN