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

151–160 of 186 posts

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#151

Post by weisser »

bitcartel wrote: post #45
jcdavis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Worth watching: Growing up poor in San Francisco. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k...

This is heartbreaking.

This 11 year old girl seems extremely gifted. Her vocabulary and insight in astounding. She could be the next great innovator or artist but we don't do enough to help people like her act on their potential.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#152

Post by wwkeyboard »

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 examples are not commerce, and therefor not relevant. Should the USDA regulate your garden? How about the vegetables in a grocery store?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#153

Post by noahc »

mamoswined wrote: post #146
tptacek wrote: post #140

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 Those renters aren't being bitten by outdated regulations.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'm really curious if there is a difference legally between giving the entire apartment to a guest for a week and letting the guest sleep in a spare bedroom.

My roommate actually had an issue with this. He had a friend from out of town stay with us for a week or so without notification of the landlord. The terms of the lease were notification of overnight guests, and they couldn't stay longer than a week without written approval.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#154

Post by wwkeyboard »

001sky wrote: post #131
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?

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 c…

No, consumer reviews are a replacement for safety inspections. The morbid side of me says "dead men post no reviews". But the real problem is how many people would need to be hurt (financially or physically) before enough reviews got out? If its one then a seller could be held hostage by a single bad review(legitimate or otherwise).

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#155

Post by potatolicious »

argumentum wrote: post #141
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…

> 1. To protect hotel owners and operators. Who gives them the right to protection?

Who gives you the right to protection?

Hotel owners, operators, and employees are all represented, tax-paying members of our society. What exactly makes them unworthy of protection moreso than yourself?

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#156

Post by maratd »

warfangle wrote: post #145
maratd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> All regulations are proposed by men of business. Was Ralpha Nader in any way connected to seatbelt companies when he proposed seatbelt and safety laws for automobiles?

Seat-belts were invented more than a 100 years before they were mandated by the government. They were available as options on Ford vehicles more than 25 years before they were mandated by the government.

I'm sure the seat-belt manufacturers had nothing to do with them becoming mandatory, right?

Remember, I said regulation requires two components. A business interest with money to "grease the wheels" of government and a public interest component that convinces the public that it's wonderful for them. The seat-belt manufacturers provided the former, Mr. Nader the later. There doesn't need to be direct cooperation. Merely the presence of both.

Not that seat-belts don't save lives, they certainly do, but don't kid yourself ... there is always somebody who wins and somebody who loses with each regulation passed, somebody who makes money and someone who loses just smidgen of their liberty.

Again, read Adam Smith.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#157

Post by baddox »

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…

> obliging taxis to take you anywhere within the city limits

> must take an extensive test requiring memorisation of virtually every street

Both of these could be things the bigger taxi companies already did willingly, but then pushed for legislation when competing upstarts began undercutting them by offering service only to high traffic routes. If the big taxi companies already do it, they are unharmed by the legislation, but competing companies much spend resources to follow the new regulations.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#158

Post by Dylan16807 »

tomkarlo wrote: post #103
Permit wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not just about size. Yes, if someone buys an apartment with three rooms and rents out two of them on a continual basis they should be treated as a hotel. But if they rent out a room on occasion then it's not the same situation.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#159

Post by baddox »

tptacek wrote: post #140

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.…

Don't the landlords put these clauses in their contracts to conform to mandatory laws (like zoning)? If that's the case, then it seems like a bit of a stretch to consider that a voluntary agreement.

Re: A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

#160

Post by danso »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #138
danso wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to get into a gun control debate here, but my point was that it is ridiculous to argue for the circumvention of the legislative process just because things seem to work in other places. As the saying goes, all politics is local.

That said, to address your rhetorical point...it's not just about hardened criminals. It's not an either or situation...there's many types of states between evil criminal and innocent civilian. Just as suicide barriers and other inconveniences actually deter suicides...even though you think that anyone who would commit suicide would bypass them...gun control laws deter those who would commit gun crimes just because they had a gun at the moment.

I'll give you a concrete example. In NYC, I've seen pedestrians and cyclists kick and punch cars that nearly run them over...and this is not an uncommon sight during rush hour, this is something I almost NEVER saw anywhere else...because in those places, you had to worry that the driver was legally carrying a gun.

In NYC, of course, the driver could conceivably have a gun...but you know what, that is a very unlikely situation, because it is not worth carrying a gun in the event that you get pulled over for a traffic infraction. And so those who might commit a crime out of hotheadedness are significantly inconvenienced by gun control laws...reducing the chance that any hothead fight results in gunfire.

And in a city as tightly packed as NYC, that is not a non-trivial benefit. I haven't been in favor of gun control laws in any of the rural areas I've lived, but in NyC, I realize it's a different situation that requires different thinking on the laws.

Post reply on HN