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

A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 186 posts

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#61

Post by goodcanadian »

tlrobinson wrote: post #51
goodcanadian wrote: post #29

The rules serve a lot of purposes: 1. To protect hotel owners and operators. 2. To protect consumers. They are guaranteed that the hotel has proper insurance, for example. 3. To protect neighbours. You can't open up a hotel in the house next door for much the same reasons that you can't open a pub or an aluminum smelter. 4. And yes, there is some rent seeking behaviour. I'll just mention transient accommodation taxes…

#1 is "a purpose" but not a good one. If hotels can't compete with Airbnb renters then that's their problem (assuming the regulatory playing field is level, which it may not be)

I think you misunderstood what I mean by protect. The laws set clear rules on what a hotel must provide. If the hotel follows those rules, they are protected from a lot of potential legal consequences. Or, to put it another way, the rules lay out a clear set of expectations that everyone can rely on. Airbnb owners are not protected in the same way because they are not (legally defined) hotel owners.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#62

Post by jlgreco »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #56
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Of course the regulations are worded and advertised as being about "consumer protection", what could the alternative possibly be? There is no way in hell a hotel lobby would write a law that plainly claimed to be for the protection of their interests. When laws protecting Taxi monopolies claim to be for consumer protection, nobody here buys it. Those laws are for the protection of Taxi companies and unions.…

>"When laws protecting Taxi monopolies claim to be for consumer protection, nobody here buys it." If I rent a room from you, and stick my hand in your meat grinder, who gets sued? Are you personally insured against such events? Is your landlord insured against temporary tenants? These aren't unsolvable problems, but are why the laws exist as they do. The hotel pays money for insurance, which protects the consumer. Mo…

I am not claiming that there are not legitimate issues with consumer protection to be considered. I merely find the idea that those laws which on the surface claim to be for that were drafted and enacted with that motivation to be incredibly unlikely. Hotel lobbyists and their politicians were not actually concerned for the consumer. They just claim that; what else could they possibly claim?

If Walmart could figure out a way to make a law banning local businesses look like it was for consumer protection, they would attempt it in a heartbeat. Consumer protection is how you sell corporate protection laws.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#63

Post by bcoates »

aba_sababa wrote: post #2

Was this paid for by hotel interests? I'm really trying to understand the depth of PR in the news.

The NYT does have a hate-on for AirBnB. I'm not sure if it's because it's stepping on some toes that have influence there or if they're just not glamored by the new tech aspect like everyone else.

Or maybe AirBnB is similar enough to craigslist and newspapers hate craigslist because it killed print.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#64

Post by BrianEatWorld »

nsp wrote: post #40
tomkarlo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me how commercial fire codes / building codes protect hotels but not consumers. (Edited from "instead of" to "but not", since the original assertion was that they only help hotel owners.)

They don't help people who want to make a new hotel, but they increase barriers to entry into the hotel marketplace, which benefits established players in the space. An analogous case is federal/iihs car safety regulations - since it costs xx million to get a car federally certified, you didn't see that many automotive startups until pretty recently, and we don't get a lot of European cars since it would cost to much…

This actually affected me directly. A mate and I were looking into bringing over some utes from Australia. Even though the cars are fit for the road over there, the governments here all wanted to "re-certify" the safety of the cars, which meant purchasing several for the sole purpose of having the crashed. Even then, the certifications would only apply to specific years.

Now I can understand trying to protect against some crazy welding his own frames in his backyard, but these are cars built by Ford and GM and driven millions of miles on tougher roads than any over here. Completely knackered.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#65

Post by tatsuke95 »

jlgreco wrote: post #62
tatsuke95 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"When laws protecting Taxi monopolies claim to be for consumer protection, nobody here buys it." If I rent a room from you, and stick my hand in your meat grinder, who gets sued? Are you personally insured against such events? Is your landlord insured against temporary tenants? These aren't unsolvable problems, but are why the laws exist as they do. The hotel pays money for insurance, which protects the consumer. Mo…

I am not claiming that there are not legitimate issues with consumer protection to be considered. I merely find the idea that those laws which on the surface claim to be for that were drafted and enacted with that motivation to be incredibly unlikely. Hotel lobbyists and their politicians were not actually concerned for the consumer. They just claim that; what else could they possibly claim? If Walmart could figure o…

Personally, I find it no different than not being able to drive a car without insurance. That protects me and other drivers, and I don't think it's an "insurance lobby" agenda (although we battle with that too).

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#66

Post by mathgladiator »

tlrobinson wrote: post #51
goodcanadian wrote: post #29

The rules serve a lot of purposes: 1. To protect hotel owners and operators. 2. To protect consumers. They are guaranteed that the hotel has proper insurance, for example. 3. To protect neighbours. You can't open up a hotel in the house next door for much the same reasons that you can't open a pub or an aluminum smelter. 4. And yes, there is some rent seeking behaviour. I'll just mention transient accommodation taxes…

#1 is "a purpose" but not a good one. If hotels can't compete with Airbnb renters then that's their problem (assuming the regulatory playing field is level, which it may not be)

I #1 is not so much to protect "hotels" so much as to protect "property owners". Suppose you rent out your condo; do you have the proper insurance to engage in that activity? After all, insurance is just another form of betting. When you rent out your stuff, as the owner, what types of protections do you have from renters.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#67

Post by anigbrowl »

maratd wrote: post #17
woah wrote: post #11

I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. I'm assuming it's to maintain some sort of control and regulation over those who would establish unlicensed hotels on a commercial scale? For the welfare of the guests I suppose? I imagine in a world before the internet, this kind of thing was actually quite necessary. It would have been much harder to know any sort of…

> I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. Business Interest: If everybody rented extra unused "space" and the market was fluid, this would substantially impact the profitability of the hospitality industry. Public Interest: Who wa…

Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest.

That is not what Adam Smith says. His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized, since those proposals are almost always meant to further the interests of the business owners rather than the public. He does not assume the same of regulation in general, and is much more sympathetic to the interests of households and laborers than is commonly supposed.

convince the public that their private property rights are being violated

You don't have a property interest in a tenant lease whose terms you choose to violate. Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room, as long as you yourself are there to take responsibility for the behavior of your guests.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#68

Post by Zimahl »

kbutler wrote: post #33

This is especially ironic in light of the post-Sandy NYC-AirBnB "partnership": "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Airbnb today announced the launch of a new platform to help connect victims of Hurricane Sandy with free housing options. Airbnb is now providing a platform to connect those who are eager to offer free housing to those who have been displaced by the storm." http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c093…

I don't see any irony. Allowing someone to stay in your home as a guest is not the same as being paid for lodging. If AirBnB was there to facilitate people to open their homes for non-paying guests, none of this would be a problem. Although renters who rent out rooms outside of their landlord's permission are just asking for an eviction.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#69

Post by jlgreco »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #65
jlgreco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not claiming that there are not legitimate issues with consumer protection to be considered. I merely find the idea that those laws which on the surface claim to be for that were drafted and enacted with that motivation to be incredibly unlikely. Hotel lobbyists and their politicians were not actually concerned for the consumer. They just claim that; what else could they possibly claim? If Walmart could figure o…

Personally, I find it no different than not being able to drive a car without insurance. That protects me and other drivers, and I don't think it's an "insurance lobby" agenda (although we battle with that too).

Fair point, but I think it is important to keep in mind that consumer protection laws often (Always? ..no, probably not always.) have ulterior motivation.

We have to be willing to consider putting things called "consumer protection laws" on the chopping block. Calling these things "consumer protection laws" affords them more protection than they may be deserving of, because who doesn't like protecting consumers? It just sounds like a great thing to do.

Calling your law a "consumer protection law" is (or rather, can be) basically a more advanced form of naming your law cleverly enough that it forms a "patriotic" acronym.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#70

Post by liamgriffiths »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #42

An interesting story. What is more interesting is that it sets up the entire game. Cities cap rents in an effort to rein in rapacious landlords, this 'traps' money in the system (whenever you artificially price something you open up the possibility that there is demand in excess of supply). AirBnb figures out a scheme to liberate that trapped money by enlisting the folks who are benefiting from the cap (tenants) at t…

Isn't renting a room for a few nights different than the guarantee of housing for months at a time? If not then why wouldn't the same landlord just do away with conventional leases and only rent on airbnb? They write the lease after all... but after all I'm just quibbling and maybe I'm wrong there.
Post reply on HN