#1 is "a purpose" but not a good one. If hotels can't compete with Airbnb renters then that's their problem (assuming the regulatory playing field is level, which it may not be)
I #1 is not so much to protect "hotels" so much as to protect "property owners". Suppose you rent out your condo; do you have the proper insurance to engage in that activity? After all, insurance is just another form of betting. When you rent out your stuff, as the owner, what types of protections do you have from renters.
I've never understood this analogy. Isn't insurance the exact opposite of betting, with a small fee tacked on? It ideally eliminates chance.
My biggest problem with business models like AirBnB and Uber are that they don't solve the inefficiencies in the existing industry. Instead They transfer the risks inherent in the operations of those industries from businesses who understand, and therefore price according to, those risks, to individuals who don't. When the downsides of those risks happen, as in the case of the OP, the individual, who didn't understan…
> they don't solve the inefficiencies in the existing industry I disagree. To use some examples given in the original article: how about a guest being able to rent a room in a neighborhood that doesn't have any hotels? Or a host being able to earn money renting out an apartment that would otherwise sit empty? Which is not to say that your other points about pricing and risk are not valid, of course.
Sometimes, but we don't know why there aren't rooms in those neighborhoods, or apartments sitting empty. If it's a genuine attempt to remove inefficiency, thats one thing, but an attempt to "beat the system"(the first part of sentence that talks about the empty rooms and location) may circumvent legitimate rules. For example HOA rules about subletting.
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 Lon…
As I said, dual motivation. It serves the claimed consumer protection purposes, but standing industry defense.
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.
If you read carefully, a lot of leases have specific clauses about guests too. There are limits in different jurisdictions about how enforceable some of these clauses are. But subletting contracts tend to hold up.
Can you loophole around it by renting out someone else's apt and having them rent out yours on a quid pro quo basis?
This means that the person staying in your home is not a friend of a friend and no longer a customer. It ceases to be a sublet, and is now you housing a friend's friend.
Intent is there. But it gets you off the hook for breaking the contract. It instead puts you on the hook for inducing someone else to break a contract, which is a harder case to prove.
>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.
If they go back several hundred years then they probably have more to do with rent-seeking than consumer protection, and if that is in fact the motivation for their existence, then they should be eliminated.
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).
This is where the abnb model seems to have an angle: if you are part-time subletting, the interest in the person living there full time is to keep a livable place. so if the FT lessor is paying 2K a month and lets his house 3 days a month, the 3 days are much more likely to be OK (~= to the other 27). The problem in one sense, is with "absentee" or professional landlords, who don't live there and have the "skin in the game". On that end of the spectrum, hotel licences seems to make a more compelling case (consumer might want an inspection if he cant trust the landlord would live in the place himeself).
> 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?
they are professional real-estate investors. your analogy is like saying invetment bankers and vc's need protection from their clients or entreprenuers. while they do need (and are entitled to) equal protection to support bilateral contract, its not clear they need protection laws in the sense of "consumer protection"==which is protection given in the public interest to allow 'naive' parties to trust 'sophisticated' professionals.
> "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…
While currently Über is better for consumers, if they ignore regulations, they could go downhill quickly.
Also, what about the next Internet taxi startup, and the one after that? Ending up with many tiny Internet companies would end us up in the same situation as unregulated taxis, where people end up getting badly ripped off?
"unless you are living in the home at the same time."
What are the conditions for living in the home at the same time? What if my roomate is out of town and I'm the role of the host? Can the room still be rented? Does leaving for a few days really mean that I'm not living in the home?
His complaint with Airbnb remains, though. “They need to start being a little more responsible and acknowledging what happened and providing a warning to users,” he said. “They’re in some kind of fight with the cities, and the users are paying the price.”