SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by lancesells » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

hamandcheese wrote: post #67

> As part of city law, San Francisco requires property owners renting out units for less than 30 days to register with the city’s office of short-term rentals, as well as be a permanent resident of that unit. As far as I can tell, AirBnb is blatantly complicit in allowing renters to violate this law. When I moved to SF I stayed in an AirBnb for a few weeks. It didn't occur to me when I booked that it could have been…

Not only are they complicit in it they are profiting off of breaking the law but having zero consequences. They are paying no fine in this case or any other I've heard of because of something in their TOS.

"As part of city law, San Francisco requires property owners renting out units for less than 30 days to register with the city’s office of short-term rentals, as well as be a permanent resident of that unit. " - The registration can easily be made a requirement to list on AirBNB and they could limit one unit rental to users.

"These are not the type of hosts we want on our platform and are glad the City has the tools it needs to enforce the rules" - Ha.

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

#92

Post by sonnyblarney » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

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?

This is a little different.

Law Enforcement want data from Facebook because it's useful to an investigation.

Law Enforcement want data from AirBnB because the act of working with AirBnb is the illegal part.

So asking a drug dealer for the name of his distributors seems reasonable to me. Or asking the illegal online betting company the names of those who were placing illegal bets.

Though the regulations should hopefully be more clear on this.

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

#93

Post by rjbwork » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

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?

"Of course, I haven't done anything wrong, why do I have anything to hide."

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

#94

Post by PopeDotNinja » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 1:58 AM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #44

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…

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…

> Property owners are responsible for the housing crisis. The city is at their whim.

If a government wants your land & they have the cash to pay for it according to some calculation, they can force you to sell via eminent domain. [1] A property owner that pisses off the government may not be a property owner indefinitely.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

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

#95

Post by baddox » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:01 AM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #44

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…

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…

> Property owners are responsible for the housing crisis. The city is at their whim.

I don't know. Maybe this is just differing philosophies of government, but when I object to the government exercising an authority that only it has, I consider that to be directly a problem with government. Obviously it's useful to look into who else influences the government's decisions, but the direct problem is the exercise of power.

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

#96

Post by jackvalentine » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:02 AM UTC

torgian wrote: post #79

pertymcpert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

How is renting it out with Airbnb different from an owner just holding onto the property and not living in it? If anything, cities should encourage property owners to rent out spare rooms or empty apartments to tourists to bring in that spending money.

> How is renting it out with Airbnb different from an owner just holding onto the property and not living in it?

How do you think it's different?

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

#97

Post by CPLX » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

dvtrn wrote: post #77

haloux wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude that’s eminent domain _prima facie_.

Look I had to be sure, I've never seen anyone actually suggest eminent domain so casually before. The only times I've seen it have been in grainy, fuzzy news reports from the 80's.

You’re kidding right?

Eminent domain is used daily in the US and around the world. It would literally be impossible to build and maintain a transportation network without it.

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

#98

Post by lurquer » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

ihm wrote: post #74

bcheung wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?

“Letting supply and demand decide” means deciding to give the housing to whoever will pay the most: which group do you think will pay more, the entire world of tourists who want to visit SF on vacation or people who live here? Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?

Been to Venice? But for a sliver of the northern side, I got the impression nobody lived there but tourists.

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

#99

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #97

dvtrn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look I had to be sure, I've never seen anyone actually suggest eminent domain so casually before. The only times I've seen it have been in grainy, fuzzy news reports from the 80's.

You’re kidding right? Eminent domain is used daily in the US and around the world. It would literally be impossible to build and maintain a transportation network without it.

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by baddox » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 2:07 AM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #86

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.

> people simply do not like having short-term visitors as neighbors or floormates.

That's a commonly provided explanation, but I find it very hard to believe that existing laws and leasing rules can't/don't already easily solve this. If too many instances of noise complaints, property damage, improper trash disposal, etc. occur from your property, you (the owner or renter) get fined or evicted. It's obviously not an excuse to say that you rented out your unit on AirBnb. Surely these laws and rules have always existed, since that problem is not unique to short-term rentals. What am I missing?