A Warning for Airbnb Hosts • Hacker News Board

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#131

Post by 001sky » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:38 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?

This is interesting, in the sense that the question is two-fold; (1) how much disclosure is needed; and (2) are there any special protections for short vs long terms?.

Arguably a sub-letted property needs to be habitable (landlord to let), so this should be ~covered. And with "yelp" style reviews hopefully discloure is possible (ie, are the linens Ok or is there mold etc). But there are some things that have health considerations...cross-contamination, rodents, etc. And who is responsible? Is this OK at "caveat emptor"?

These are interesting fundamental questions about how much its possible for private contracts to work with/out Gov't regulation. Its exciting to think about ways to solve these problems (ie, not just gloss them over) with technology rather than with politics/bureaucrats, etc. That is: if it is possible, or not.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#132

Post by pbreit » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:40 AM 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'…

The laws certainly do exist in most places where airbnb is used most (ie, NY, SF, other big cities).

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#133

Post by 001sky » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:51 AM UTC

bhickey wrote: post #130

mkenyon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a little harsh, although this is good info/context. The salient nugget is that the laws are ones that are both old do not get updated often. It would be more fair to say words to the effect that "the counter-argument is they have withstood the test of time". But the fact that they still write "railroad mileabge books" instead of "Transportation Tickets" or some-such, is indicative of the lack of iteration. At least at first glance, to an outsider. Nothing against RI.

It does suggest that looking at these laws en-toto and updating them for modern living (lifestyles, technology, etc) might warranted. And that updates might-be net-beneficial to society. Its not clear they need whole-sale revision thought.

We're going through this now with e-mail and cloud privacy laws that are out of date, too. Its not just a cheap shot at one state or one industry.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#134

Post by matthewowen » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 1:54 AM UTC

nieksand wrote: post #121

wwkeyboard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those people don't pay for the privilege, and they are people you already know. You aren't providing a service in exchange for payment.

The situations really aren't comparable - in the same way that (topically) giving a ride to a friend isn't comparable to running a taxi service.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#135

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 2:07 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #75

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.

"Indeed, AirBNB is in a much better position to research and advise its partners on the law"

How are they in a "much better position" to know what weird condition exists in someone's lease, or what might be in the articles of some random HOA?

Just how far does this go? Should (e.g.) a company that sells mail-order baby chicks do research to find out that (e.g.) the local ordinances where I live prohibit keeping more than two of any one kind of animal within the city limits?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#136

Post by maratd » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 2:09 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #67

maratd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. Business Interest: If everybody rented extra unused "space" and the market was fluid, this would substantially impact the profitability of the hospitality industry. Public Interest: Who wa…

Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. That is not what Adam Smith says. His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized, since those proposals are almost always meant to further the interests of the business owners rather than the public. He does not assume the same of regulation in gen…

> His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized

All regulations are proposed by men of business.

> Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room

If you read the article, which mostly speaks about NYC, you'd know that's not OK. You're not permitted to lease any property for less than 30 days.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#137

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 2:15 AM UTC

tatsuke95 wrote: post #50

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"?

>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"? That's half the point. The other half is that nearly everyone who rents out spaces on AirBnB is likely breaking a local law or tenant agreement. These laws occur on a broad enough scale, globally, that the customer should be warned.

Don't they do just that?

https://www.airbnb.com/responsible-hosting

It looks pretty thorough to me.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#138

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 2:17 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #120

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'…

This is highly specious reasoning. I would guess the vast majority of American municipalities have far fewer regulations in gun possession that NYC, and despite the number of tragic stories that you hear, virtually all of these municipalities are quite civilized and pleasant. So by your reasoning, the gun laws in NYC aren't needed.

"the gun laws in NYC aren't needed."

That's right. They aren't.

It's always a mystery to me why people just assume that criminals are going to pay attention whatsoever to gun laws.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#139

Post by cominatchu » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 2:18 AM UTC

The law here clearly needs to evolve, and probably should have evolved by now. AirBnb wants to keep people safe, as it's in the best interest of their business. Some purposes of the law are also to keep people safe, but we need to revisit protectionist laws that restrict renting out parts of your home to others solely to protect hotels, and the fact that Airbnb has made it much safer to rent out your home (you can see people's reputations online, their social networks and who they know, Airbnb provides insurance, etc) means that some of the old laws aren't needed.

What is clear to me is that this sort of spot enforcement is a waste of taxpayer money and doesn't serve to help anyone. I hope we can work towards real legal reform as companies like Airbnb and Uber drive innovation in our cities.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#140

Post by tptacek » Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 2:22 AM UTC

I have zero sympathy at all for renters facing eviction for housing Airbnb tenants. Those renters aren't being bitten by outdated regulations. They signed a contract that spelled out their obligations to the owner of the building, and the boilerplate version of that contract says that you can't add tenants (or replace your own obligation as a tenant during the term of the lease) without the owner's express approval.

I love Airbnb. I have had nothing but good experiences with them directly and I hope they succeed beyond their wildest imaginings. But if you're a renter, not an owner, and letting your place out on Airbnb without checking your lease, you've reneged on a contract. Not a shrink-wrap or click-through or EULA, but an ink and paper contract that every tenants rights group in the country tells you to read carefully.

The one time I've been in civil court ever was with a landlord; I have had nothing but bad experiences with landlords and think poorly of virtually every one I've had. But the flip side of that is, if I expect landlords to be compelled into making repairs or returning security deposits, I have to hold up my end of the contract as well.

Airbnb shouldn't have to warn renters to read their damned leases.