Was this paid for by hotel interests? I'm really trying to understand the depth of PR in the news.
It may be paid for by some hotel lobby, that does not invalidate the story. (Assuming that the facts and the stories reported are true)
A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
81–90 of 186 posts
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't make blanket claims about what everyone here believes. I believe laws protecting Taxis are for consumer protection, and so are the hotel laws. While I do not claim these laws are perfect, I believe they continue to serve an important real purpose.
Certainly Taxis laws can and do protect consumers, but do you really think they are for that? In the authorial intent meaning of "for"? That is a legitimate viewpoint, but I find it surprising to hear it here. It was not my intent to marginalize.
> "do you really think they are for that? In the authorial intent meaning of "for"?"
Why not? I mean, at this point your argument seems to be along the lines of "ah, but that's what they'd want you to think".
The vast majority of taxi laws are to protect the consumer: for example, obliging taxis to take you anywhere within the city limits clearly is of far more benefit the consumer than the taxi driver (the driver may not want to go to areas where there are fewer fares, for example.
Another example - here in London hackney drivers (taxis you can hail) must take an extensive test requiring memorisation of virtually every street. Again, this is of far more benefit to the consumer (a taxi driver who knows where he's going) than the driver (who has to spend a lot of time and money preparing for the test). Criminal background checks for taxi drivers: how is this not for consumer protection?
If you're going to claim that these regulations are primarily to serve business interests rather than consumers then please do, but at least cite a few examples. I'm sure they exist: I don't propose every regulation governing hotels and taxis are in the consumer's favor.
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#83The 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…
>You may agree or disagree with the various laws to various degrees, but you must admit that they exist for a reason. By all means discuss reforms that can be made, but please stop with the "these laws are stupid" or "serve no purpose" sort of sentiments.
How about this: "These laws do not exist in most places and those places haven't descended into anarchy, nor have they suffered any visible damage because they don't have them. Therefore it might be reasonable to suspect these laws aren't needed".
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#84The 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.
Airbnb provides the infrastructure, withholding much more information than a typical hotel frond desk.
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#85Earlier 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.
Your argument here might be relevant if people are falsely led to believe that they are, in fact, doing business with a hotel, rather than a private individual with a residence.
We already have laws that govern private contracts between individuals, protect private property, and protect individuals from being an undue burden on one another.
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#86Earlier 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…
Further to your question: Hotels in Rhode Island are required to post in each room that if you put your railroad mileage books (among other things) in the safe, the hotel is not liable for loss of said property. These laws were first drafted in the 19th century.
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#87This follows a classic pattern. Incumbents once argued that having a 3rd wireless carrier per city was a threat to the public: http://cdixon.org/2012/10/10/regulatory-hacks/
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#88Why the hell did they call the thing "Airbnb" instead of "AirBnB"?
"Airbnb" makes no sense.
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#89This 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.
It is the same thing when you look at several of the excuses for the fines and crackdowns:
1. Neighbors "have a right" to know who their neighbors are and not have numerous people traipsing through.
2. Hosts may not have appropriate insurance.
3. Emergency authorities have no idea who's in the building.
Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts
#90The 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…
Yet the success of airbnb means that there is strong need to amend or extend these laws. After all, it's a different kind of lodging in which the consumer accepts nonstandard services for a smaller fee. At this point, the airbnb model has gained enough momentum to be unstoppable by local lobbies.
Currently, especially in europe, airbnb seems to be borderline legal for people who don't own licences. Inevitably airbnb will have to find common ground with local authorities, instead of relegating the issue to individual users. After all it's in their interest.