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

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#101

Post by wwkeyboard »

zerostar07 wrote: post #90
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…

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…

How much of that success comes from the existing industries inefficiencies and how much from skirting legitimate costs like insurance, hygiene, inspections, and local government's travel bureau taxes?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#102

Post by jlgreco »

objclxt wrote: post #82
jlgreco wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

Yes, not all laws that are labeled as consumer protection have ulterior motivations (it would indeed be silly to argue that), but just from your list of examples the street memorization example certainly strikes me as one with dual motivation. It doesn't benefit people who want to become Taxi drivers, but it certainly benefits drivers who are already drivers. Tests like that keep competition low; Unions, formal or otherwise, love that sort of regulation. They simply adore it.

I did not think specific examples of taxi regulation were really necessary. HN always seems to be awash with stories about taxi corporations/unions with their pet politicians trying to shut down Uber for being unconventional in various ways. Uber is not harming consumers (in fact, they are better for consumers in many ways. For example due to the way that they work Uber drivers cannot discriminate against consumers by race, which is a large problem with regular taxis, at least in the States.), but Taxi companies/unions are wielding existing regulations, or even crafting new regulations, as weapons against what they perceive to be a threat to their business.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#103

Post by tomkarlo »

Permit wrote: post #98
tomkarlo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Small operators are generally regulated as well, at least in most places. There were small lodging operators (1-5 rooms) long before there were huge hotels.

If you run a bed & breakfast (<10 rooms, generally) you are still subject to regulations that a private homeowner would not have to comply with.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#104

Post by akalsey »

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…

The only protection a hotel operator gets here is protection of their business model. Governments should not generally be in the business of favoring one business model over another, or of passing laws that protect models from the march of time. See also: Uber, copyright extension act.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#105

Post by wisty »

baddox wrote: post #18
tomkarlo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lodging laws aren't there just to protect hotels. They exist to protect consumers and residents as well by setting standards for safety, etc. and helping pay for the services provided to guests by the municipality. If you take AirBNB to its logical conclusion, you end up with landlords renting apartments on AirBNB instead of to actual residents, because they can make more that way -- because they're ducking the rules…

> Lodging laws aren't there just to protect hotels. They exist to protect consumers and residents as well by setting standards for safety, etc. and helping pay for the services provided to guests by the municipality. That sounds very naive, and is extremely difficult to believe, unless hotels played no role in advocating the regulations. Besides, if that were the purpose, then why not ask the Airbnb renter and occupa…

Typically, hotels will fight against these regulation before they are passed (fearing increased costs), then fight to defend them once they are there (once they realise it keeps out the competition).

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#106

Post by wwkeyboard »

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…

It's not just protection from scams. What about the hygiene of the linnens? The fire escapes? Are there sprinklers in these rooms like there are in hotels? Is the room secured from intruders?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#107

Post by [deleted] »

wwkeyboard wrote: post #101
zerostar07 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much of that success comes from the existing industries inefficiencies and how much from skirting legitimate costs like insurance, hygiene, inspections, and local government's travel bureau taxes?

[deleted]

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#109

Post by jrockway »

anigbrowl wrote: post #80
tomkarlo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Uh, he killed someone. That's just plain negligent.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#110

Post by [deleted] »

Permit wrote: post #100
goodcanadian wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN