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

SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 157 posts

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#81

Post by ballenf »

Are they not going after airbnb to get their fees back? Airbnb seems to charge a fee of around 10-13% on bookings, putting their haul around $100k for the 11 months mentioned in the article. Maybe the settlement mentioned also included a financial component.

Not downplaying the landlord's unlawful acts, but they couldn't have easily operated at this scale without the help of a popular platform.

There's also a 14% occupancy tax only on rentals of less than 30 days, so SF has a financial disincentive against converting all these properties to long term rentals. (Edit: if airbnb is lowering the average short term rental price, then the picture is less clear. There are tourists who will go outside SF if there aren't any 'whole house' options there...)

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#82

Post by ppeetteerr »

torgian wrote: post #70

Personally, I see no problem with Airbnb and I think the government forcing you to be licensed is bad. Airbnb has a review system for a reason. If it’s a shitty place, you write a review and other people will be less inclined to rent. I’ve been in hotels that were shitty and licensed. I’ve been in airbnb rentals that were cheaper and better taken care of. I’ve also been in great hotels and shitty Airbnb’s. How is sui…

There was a case made that Airbnb rentals are subsidized by the local residents through higher rent. So if you travel to Paris, you're paying less for an Airbnb rental there. In your own city, Airbnb rentals are rising the cost of buying and renting. The outcome is that your costs end up the same: higher property at home, lower price of renting abroad.

This is, of course, purely theoretical. There are many other factors in play: regulation, your propensity to travel, desirability of your home neighborhood, etc.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#83

Post by matchbok »

nanis wrote: post #49
bcheung wrote: post #16

What is the motivation for this law? Why is SF regulating the length of stay or rentors at all? Seems like a gross violation of freedom and property rights. Zoning I can understand but duration? This seems like a bad law.

Hotel owners do not want competition. For a politician, it is easier to extract surplus from a limited number of hotel owners than from a large number of people renting their individual units. So, under the appropriate excuse, a law preventing competition is passed. The foundations of all this were established in the early 20th century in cases such as Nebbia v New York[1], Munn v Illinois[2] etc. For the record, I t…

This his incredible inaccurate.

Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented. The fact that these interests align with the hotel industry is irrelevant.

Most of the profit AirBnb generates is from huge, commercial interests renting out 10+ rooms and entire houses. That strains supply and disrupts neighborhoods.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#85

Post by iaw »

seattle_spring wrote: post #64
ppeetteerr wrote: post #42

Airbnb is suing NY right now because the city wants the names and addresses of those who are illegally renting without registering their apartments. I believe it's called "disruption"

So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?

When does Facebook not do that?

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#86

Post by bobthepanda »

torgian wrote: post #70

Personally, I see no problem with Airbnb and I think the government forcing you to be licensed is bad. Airbnb has a review system for a reason. If it’s a shitty place, you write a review and other people will be less inclined to rent. I’ve been in hotels that were shitty and licensed. I’ve been in airbnb rentals that were cheaper and better taken care of. I’ve also been in great hotels and shitty Airbnb’s. How is sui…

The licensing is not to ensure quality, the licensing is to restrict supply of hotel units. Not to keep hotels in business, but because people simply do not like having short-term visitors as neighbors or floormates.

It's not a win for city licensed landlords. It's a win for residents. Residents are ultimately voters. And AirBnB is bad for the vast majority of residents.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#87

Post by sokoloff »

torgian wrote: post #70

Personally, I see no problem with Airbnb and I think the government forcing you to be licensed is bad. Airbnb has a review system for a reason. If it’s a shitty place, you write a review and other people will be less inclined to rent. I’ve been in hotels that were shitty and licensed. I’ve been in airbnb rentals that were cheaper and better taken care of. I’ve also been in great hotels and shitty Airbnb’s. How is sui…

I use AirBnB all over the place and love it. That said, I don't have a problem with a reasonable government licensing requirement. I want my AirBnBs to have smoke detectors (and CO detectors where relevant). I want them to have safe means of egress in a fire.

These are not things that ratings/reviews/stars are going to capture.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#88

Post by [deleted] »

Simon_says wrote: post #54
ilikehurdles wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property owners are responsible for the housing crisis. The city is at their whim. But that’s beside the point, because this is a case about an unlicensed Airbnb. I don’t know what the laws are where you come from, but someone illegally turning their multi-tenant property in a residential neighborhood into a 24-hour motel isn’t someone I have any sympathy for. Besides, Airbnb is no answer to the dearth of housing in…

Either they're being price gouged or they're saving $50 on a hotel room. You can't have it both ways.

[deleted]

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#89

Post by bobthepanda »

bcheung wrote: post #47
devindotcom wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes? You have different rights as a renter and as a consumer of hotel services. If you claim to be regulated by one (say as a landlord who has several empty units intended for lease) but are operating as the other (essentially an off-books hotel) that is an attempt to manipulate regulators and avoid responsibilities, tax bu…

There are already laws and rights for tenants that are based on how long they have stayed at a place, whether they have received mail there, pay for utilities there, etc. Generally speaking, the more you are a full time tenant for a longer duration the more rights you have.

People don't like living next to hotels. This has never really been a problem because until recently the barrier to operating an apartment as a hotel was very high, so no regulation arose to regulate it. All current movements for AirBnB licensing are doing is regulating these as if they are hotels.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#90

Post by madeuptempacct »

taurath wrote: post #30
nostromo wrote: post #19

> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…

Why don’t they don’t let people build housing? Voters in the city.

I actually understand it. Ironically, a San Francisco resident Uber driver explained it to me. She said something like "People like the small city feel without over-population, people like the view from almost anywhere in the city - we don't want to to be another new your.

And while the skeptic in me sees "Property owners don't want prices to go down," I also see the other side now. San Fran wouldn't be San Fran even if we dug deep to have a ton of housing without ruining the view.

There is something to be said for not seeing a single police car until going South at night (or getting pulled over for going South on some street starting with an S "after 9"). There is also something to be said for living around people who can afford to live there (I can't, so don't take this as some elitist techie failing to check his privilige).

Post reply on HN