A Warning for Airbnb Hosts • Hacker News Board

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#121

Post by nieksand » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:11 AM UTC

wwkeyboard wrote: post #106

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…

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?

So should you be allowed to have any overnight guests in your home?

These same arguments apply to family and friends coming for a visit and crashing at your place. Or to a kid's sleep-over for that matter.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#122

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:15 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #102

objclxt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 ot…

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.

Aren't you leaving consumers out of the equation? After a decade of living in London, where Black Cab drivers are required to pass a stringent test of street knowledge (you can see would-be cab drivers zipping around London in the evenings on small motorcycles), I find it infuriating that American cab drivers frequently have no idea how to get me to my destination. As often as not I'm taking a cab because I don't know how to get where I'm going in the time available.

I have frequently raged against the taxi monopoly and in support of Uber, but as much because the licensed taxi drivers provide a crap service as anything else. If they were held to high standards by a regulator (as they are in some places) then I'd be a lot more supportive of restricted entry.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#123

Post by matthewowen » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:16 AM UTC

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…

Not at all. As the article says, it's perfectly legal to rent out a room in your apartment, provided that you are also living in the apartment. The fact that some people use AirBnB illegally is neither here nor there.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#124

Post by danso » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:16 AM UTC

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…

Why is this "ironic"?

Or are you saying that if BP steps in with a generous donation of gasoline supplies during a natural disaster, the government should give them more leeway in environmental regulations?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#125

Post by colevscode » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:19 AM UTC

This article presents a false dichotomy:

"Could you afford the kinds of fines that Mr. Warren was facing? If not, take your listing down."

This assumes that a majority of hosts are breaking the law. Yet early in the article the author claims:

"...he was breaking the law. And that law says you cannot rent out single-family homes or apartments, or rooms in them, for less than 30 days unless you are living in the home at the same time."

I've stayed at roughly a dozen AirBnB listings, and only once was the host not living in the home during my stay. In fact, as the article mentions, that's a big part of the AirBnB guest experience-- interacting with the hosts.

Perhaps the problem is that many hosts are treating their homes as small hotels, letting out all the rooms and moving themselves elsewhere. Curtailing this practice would avoid legal issues and improve the guest experience. A win-win if you ask me!

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#126

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:19 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #116

001sky wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting. I imagine if courts decide that ABB+lessors do not run afoul of housing/renting regulations and establish some precendence, it might make economic sense for someone to build an ABB hotel where only people booking via ABB and its decendats are booked, thus avoiding the regulation which runs up the price of other hoteling models.

That's unlikely to happen. There are extended-stay hotels for people who come from out of town to work temporarily and that are often paid for by the employer or a corporate client - they're basically little studio apartments with some extra services laid on for the convenience of the residents. To the extent that they're liable for hotel taxes or regulatory fees, the principle of equal protection under the law would require an ABB hotel to be be similarly liable.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#127

Post by jvm » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:21 AM UTC

jcdavis wrote: post #27

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 live in SF and I have no issue with landlords evicting tenants who were being AirBnB hosts. Realize that: 1) The housing market in SF is crazy right now (obviously this is hardly their fault) 2) There are thousands of available AirBnB rooms available in SF. A quick search far out returns over 2700 - thats 2700 (or more) rooms that people could be living in. 3) San Francisco has very strict rent control (whether or…

#1, #3 are all different ways of saying that the housing supply in SF is very tight.

That's a situation where creating more supply by renting out your room when you go on trips can be really helpful. Supply goes up, demand stays the same, rents fall.

#2 I think is an exaggeration of what's happening. Most places listed on AirBNB are occupied by owners putting their place up when they leave town. A few maybe not, but even in that case, why favor long-term renters over short-term renters?

#4 is a great point, but insurmountably restrictive laws make things worse by not allowing people to come to negotiated agreements with their landlords on using AirBNB. E.g., I'm sure landlords would be more amenable if they got a cut.

My take on this is that the problem here is that it's basically impossible to jump through the hoops necessary to legitimately rent out your room for a weekend, and that seems silly. You should be able to just fill out a form with the city, maybe pay a registration fee, and agree to comply with regulations.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#128

Post by sarah2079 » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:23 AM 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…

This part of the article jumped out at me as well. SF residents of rent controlled apartments beware! This is the perfect excuse for you to be evicted.

Not sure if you actually need the whole fake customer scheme you describe though, I am sure a landlord could easily get enough evidence without doing this.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#129

Post by danso » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:25 AM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #63

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.

What's with the need to see a conspiracy in everything? Is it so hard to see how housing laws, which NYC residents LOVE when it comes to rent control and tenant rights, inherently conflict with the freedom for a renter to rent out the apartment for a profit?

I'm all for critical thinking, but not when it flouts occam's Razor just for the hell of it.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#130

Post by bhickey » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:35 AM UTC

mkenyon wrote: post #86

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…

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.

General Law 5-14-1 covers: "any money, jewels, jewelry, watches, ornaments, railroad mileage books and tickets, bank notes, bonds, negotiable securities, and precious stones"

Framing it as an absurd, antiquated law is hardly charitable.