A Warning for Airbnb Hosts • Hacker News Board

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#91

Post by tomkarlo » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:35 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #83

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…

>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'…

Except they do exist in most places, in one form or another. Can you point to some places that don't require hotel operators to submit to some kind of licensing / regulation?

These laws aren't new - UK lodging laws go back several hundred years.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#92

Post by goodcanadian » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:35 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #83

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…

>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'…

Your premise is flawed. Transient accommodation laws and zoning rules exist throughout North America, Europe, and Australia. I am left to assume they exist in many other places I am less familiar with.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#93

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:40 PM UTC

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…

Both of these things go on (landlords with 'psuedo' hotels) and short term contracts that try to skirt hotel rules. The hotels has been shooting rocks at landlords and AirBnb for just this very reason. (if you measure disruptiveness by the number of people in power you piss off AirBnb scores 11 out of 10 :-))

There was an AirBnb story posted here a while ago about a NY tenant and AirBnb provider that got a letter from his landlords lawyer to cease and desist because it was a violation of his lease and oh by the way it was competing with rooms the landlord had set up.

Edit: Found the HN story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4074105

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#94

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:42 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #71

anigbrowl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a binary choice between runaway Shanghai-style development and amber-like stasis. You can equally argue that if people don't have any input into the planning process then they won't invest that property market in the first place. If there aren't enough people willing to buy, then developers won't be willing to build. This is why developers create HOA corporations for apartment buildings and tract housing, and make membership a condition of sale: to assure buyers that the development will be maintained in similar style to the time the properties were offered to the market. They don't emerge naturally from some common democratic impulse of apartment-dwellers or suburbanites.

Also, home ownership is not an investment opportunity for most people, who are looking for a place to live long-term rather than to flip or extract cash value from (the departure from this historical approach has a lot to do with the recent financial crisis). Rather, most homeowners want to extract use value and simply maintain the asset price.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#95

Post by 001sky » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:49 PM UTC

goodcanadian wrote: post #79

001sky wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

No worries, "consumer protection" laws and "protection racket" are quasi-idomatic expressions. [1] e.g. even here in your example of the fire: its true that not-breaking the law "protects you" from being prosecuted. But the law itself (ie=must show fire escape) is called a "consumer protection" law (ie, by idiom). Its not on the books to keep the hotelier out of jail...it's on the books to keep the consumer from dying in a fire because s/he gets lost =D/.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#96

Post by wwkeyboard » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:53 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #83

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…

>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'…

And this, folks, is the breath taking arrogance the article mentions.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#97

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:53 PM UTC

nateabele wrote: post #85

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.

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.

The common law of contract and tort is essentially the history of existing laws proving inadequate to forestall unwanted outcomes.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#98

Post by Permit » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:55 PM UTC

tomkarlo wrote: post #91

Permit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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'…

Except they do exist in most places, in one form or another. Can you point to some places that don't require hotel operators to submit to some kind of licensing / regulation? These laws aren't new - UK lodging laws go back several hundred years.

An individual offering a short-term sublease is not equivalent to a hotel operator offering tens or hundreds of rooms. Can you point out why you'd equate the two?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#99

Post by 001sky » Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:57 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #73

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.

Yes--this is already happening. Entire apt blocks (say 6 -12 units) set up to short-term-lease. The next-door property owners hate this (ie, short term = vargrants, if you are a snob) that is why they lobby for 30 day min-stay laws on sublets.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#100

Post by Permit » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 12:01 AM UTC

goodcanadian wrote: post #92

Permit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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'…

Your premise is flawed. Transient accommodation laws and zoning rules exist throughout North America, Europe, and Australia. I am left to assume they exist in many other places I am less familiar with.

I'm unaware of any such law covering short-term subleases in Canada. By "transient accommodation laws", are you speaking about hotels with hundreds of guests, or on an individual short-term sublease level?