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

71–80 of 186 posts

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#71

Post by natrius »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
tjic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is exactly what happens in Paris. Housing market there is skewed due to exactly this behavior. Under any sane market, untapped demand creates its own supply. Big cities, though, have big governments that forbid new construction. This works very well for those who already own property (they have their rental prices driven up), and works very well for the politicians (who get donations from the existing property…

Not everyone who owns property is a landlord, so that alone blows a giant hole in your thesis. The older a city is, the more people want it to stay the same because they bought their property based on a certain set of assumptions, like a place being a quiet neighborhood or so. Property owners do have an interest in the use and enjoyment of their property, and it is they, rather than government itself, that tend to ra…

People who aren't comfortable with the uncertainties of homeownership are free to rent instead. There are plenty of other investment opportunities out there. It isn't self-evident that keeping neighborhoods static creates more value than it destroys. I think there's more evidence to the contrary.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#72

Post by natrius »

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…

These laws don't require AirBnB hosts to purchase insurance. They outlaw renting out their homes. An argument based on the need for insurance doesn't justify the laws.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#73

Post by mc32 »

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…

I wonder if there would be a new hotelier who might emerge who builds 'hotels' solely to rent out rooms via ABB to avoid some of the regular hoteling regulations.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#74

Post by 001sky »

goodcanadian wrote: post #61
tlrobinson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#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.

This sense of protection -- ie, to be protected from the government -- is probably not the best use of words. Its akin to a protection racket (pay me and i won't hurt you).

That being said, its still a valid point...hotel customers need "protection" from unscroupulous "hoteliers" becase, for example, they are tourists from a foreign country or small-town USA etc and are thus less sophisticated and make easy prey (historically) for scam-artists (bait ans switch rooms, or general hold-up probelms, etc).

The Interesting question is this: Does the transparency and accountability of Online provide adequate protection? If it does not, does it have the potential to? Back in the day (like, pre-ww2) its easy to imagine things going on in hotels that hurt clients but were "behind the scenes" with no proof other than he-said-she-said. But now we have e-mail, terms of service, electronic booking, CCTV and other things that might change the calculus a bit--at the public policy level.

Open for debate, at least.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#75

Post by anigbrowl »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #4

So AirBnB is supposed to know the laws of every single city/town/village/condo or home owner's association, or does this guy think New York is "special"?

If you want to be a in market, then compliance is your responsibility. It's not like AirBNB can't afford a lawyer, or like these laws are not discoverable online. Indeed, AirBNB is in a much better position to research and advise its partners on the law than individual apartment-dwellers who want to participate in the service do; the company benefits from substantial economies of scale.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#76

Post by sks »

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…

These regulations are definitely not stupid. Hotels keep detailed records of who checked in and out which can be used by law enforcement. If people are allowed to sublease their places they would have to build a similar infrastructure else it will become easier to evade law enforcement.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#77

Post by sophacles »

anigbrowl wrote: post #41
tjic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is exactly what happens in Paris. Housing market there is skewed due to exactly this behavior. Under any sane market, untapped demand creates its own supply. Big cities, though, have big governments that forbid new construction. This works very well for those who already own property (they have their rental prices driven up), and works very well for the politicians (who get donations from the existing property…

Not everyone who owns property is a landlord, so that alone blows a giant hole in your thesis. The older a city is, the more people want it to stay the same because they bought their property based on a certain set of assumptions, like a place being a quiet neighborhood or so. Property owners do have an interest in the use and enjoyment of their property, and it is they, rather than government itself, that tend to ra…

Quiet you. Everyone knows that people are strictly rational economic actors. Factors such as sentimentality, preference, and anything else not about screwing over the next guy as much as possible never come into play.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#78

Post by konstruktor »

sliverstorm wrote: post #31
Permit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Airbnb started providing warnings about laws in various cities, wouldn't the lack of a warning for another area suggest there were no legal issues there? This seems like something you can't half-ass.

In other areas, you can simply swap out the "This is Illegal" disclaimer with a "This might be illegal in your area, we don't know"

I really hope that your are right. Everything else would be a very perverse incentive.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#79

Post by goodcanadian »

001sky wrote: post #74
goodcanadian wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This sense of protection -- ie, to be protected from the government -- is probably not the best use of words. Its akin to a protection racket (pay me and i won't hurt you). That being said, its still a valid point...hotel customers need "protection" from unscroupulous "hoteliers" becase, for example, they are tourists from a foreign country or small-town USA etc and are thus less sophisticated and make easy prey (his…

Wow . . . I am doing a bad job of keeping my message clear.

Yes, of course, I mean protected from the government, but I also mean protected from customers, and protected from less scrupulous competition (which may be uncomfortably close to the point that tlrobinson was trying to make, but you have to understand that the airbnb owners are generally not following the same rules that the hotels are required to).

I am just waiting for the first time someone gets sued because they didn't post the rates and a map to the fire escape on the back of the door.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#80

Post by anigbrowl »

tomkarlo wrote: post #46
duked wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reasoning would be "ok" if Airbnb would absorb the cost of the fine. The problem here is that all the illegal part is done by the airbnb customer who offers his short term rental on the site and he is the one who has to pay the fine if any.

It's like if made an navigation app that tells you all the best places to jaywalk (and sold it to you), but failed to tell you that it's likely to eventually cost you $150.

Or jail time, as in the case of an SF cyclist who was an avid competitor in Strava's ap comunity: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/chris_bucchere_c...
Post reply on HN