Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 276 posts

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#241

Post by yebyen »

jbooth wrote: post #162
yebyen wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2012-state-business-tax-cli... There's NY, ranked right behind NJ as #49 for second least favorable state business tax climate. That's right. Worse than California for business owners. I have no idea of the legitimacy of this graph, it only took 10 seconds of Googling to find it. Not saying anything about Upstate vs The City, but my dad has lived in NY for near to his whole life, he's…

Yes, conservative think tanks will always put NYC/Cali as the least favorable business climate. But where's the business? Here. Cali. I live in NJ, I work in NY, so I got 49 and 50 going strong here. I can tell you, and you'll have to just trust me on this, business is better here than in Alabama or Arkansas which have much better 'business climates'. You received higher tax returns than what you paid because of the…

Well, thanks for the spirited discussion, and .. erm, for paying the bill, too!

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#242

Post by tusharc »

The strangest part of the ruling to me was the following implication that it would have been fine if the tenant had gone into the housemate's room (not just been allowed access, as per the verbiage of the law) "... Morrick noted that his renter did not go into Warren's housemate's room during her stay."

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#243

Post by baddox »

ahallock wrote: post #237
dragonwriter wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be) Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set of promises that lacks the intent necessary to form a contract. > then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions? Yes, u…

> Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set of promises that lacks the intent necessary to form a contract. That is one definition, but not the only. And I'm sure there are creative ways to enforce contracts without State force--third-party arbitration could be an option, social pressure, etc. Most cont…

I'll add: third-party arbitration is already quite common, and in many cases is very deliberately used to avoid the government alternative. The definition proposed by that commenter indicates to me that he or she is simply unaware of the existence and commonness of arbitration.

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#244

Post by baddox »

rayiner wrote: post #216
brown9-2 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Uber harm the community?

The problem with Uber isn't necessarily, that it harms the community, but that it unfairly competes with the taxi monopoly. Now, your first reaction might be to say "well that's the taxi monopoly's problem" but there is more to it. The taxi monopoly is a bargain struck between municipalities and service providers. The bargain is that taxi cabs get monopoly protection in return for their agreeing to function as an ext…

> The taxi monopoly is a bargain struck between municipalities and service providers.

Indeed. It's an agreement of which Uber and its customers are not members.

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#245

Post by baddox »

davidw wrote: post #72
cletus wrote: post #62

I've had this argument with several people. Their position is that "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want with it" (even when renting they use this argument). My argument is that this is not and has never been true. You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment. What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. An endless…

The term that's involved in this is "externality": costs that are imposed on people not involved in the actual transaction (use of the place for payment). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality You rightly point out, that, for instance, in a crowded apartment building, having something like a dynamite storage facility would probably be a bad idea. However, other things might be annoying too, such as having children…

Pointing out the existence of externalities is not sufficient. You need to show why government (loosely defined here as an organization with a well-accepted legal monopoly on the use of violence to resolve conflicts) will lead to fewer negative externalities than other means of conflict resolution.

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#246

Post by baddox »

sliverstorm wrote: post #84
davidw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term that's involved in this is "externality": costs that are imposed on people not involved in the actual transaction (use of the place for payment). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality You rightly point out, that, for instance, in a crowded apartment building, having something like a dynamite storage facility would probably be a bad idea. However, other things might be annoying too, such as having children…

Yeah, AirBnB basically seems to be an exercise in converting externalities into profit.

That would only apply to specific airbnb stays which cause negative externalities like discomfort to other apartment residents. Do you really think that this is a measurable problem?

I don't. I think that hotels are just pissed because airbnb provides a fairly thin layer of technology that allows property owners and renters to use their property more efficiently (by having it occupied more often) and therefore threatens the very core of their business.

It's the same story with taxi drivers opposing ridesharing services. Does anyone really think that taxi drivers are mad because they're worried that these new services will provide a less safe or comfortable experience to passengers, which is supposedly the point of taxi regulations? Nope. I think they're mad because ridesharing services allow more efficient use of automobiles and therefore threaten the very core of the taxi industry. Any bets on what taxi drivers will think about Google's automated cars when they start offering shuttles for hire?

If we want to talk about externalities, we should at least recognize the possibility (and, I dare say, the near certainty) that many government regulations themselves have considerable negative externalities.

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#247

Post by Argorak »

tomjen3 wrote: post #128
Argorak wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please clarify which of those circumstances do not apply today? Especially the basic one that most housing space is intended for residency which, by its nature, is less lucrative then short-term renting? Quite on the contrary, in this case I think that the circumstances here are even pointing towards more regulation and AirBNB is accellerating that.

Well for one, Uber has had all kinds of problems being allowed to run taxies for hire in NY, and one of the complaints has been that they don't have a city certified taxi-meter installed. That regulation might have made sense before GPS enabled smartphones -- especially when said GPS enabled smartphones are the only way to hail an Uber car. I don't know the reason for banning unlicened hotels, but I imagine that at l…

We're talking housing, not cars here.

The reason for banning unlicensed hotels is to ensure that there is enough space for actual rent.

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#248

Post by lotsofcows »

baddox wrote: post #109
cletus wrote: post #62

I've had this argument with several people. Their position is that "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want with it" (even when renting they use this argument). My argument is that this is not and has never been true. You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment. What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. An endless…

> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment. I would prefer that you could, in the (perhaps unlikely) scenario that it was allowed by the terms of your rental agreement. If it's your own property, go right ahead. > What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. Many residents would probably agree, and if enough agree, then there's no re…

"go right ahead" Yeah! My neighbours can go fuck themselves! Always complaining about my 3am parties and my friends from the Silencers Are a Crime Motorbike Club. It's my turn to be selfish!

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#249

Post by namdnay »

darkarmani wrote: post #137
sliverstorm wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, AirBnB basically seems to be an exercise in converting externalities into profit.

That might be true if your worldview started and ended at the edge of NYC. For the rest of us, AirBnB is used across the country in suburbs and less populous cities. If you have a two family house and "air out" the second apartment, how exactly is that converting externalities into profit? I'm not sure a densely populated city should really make any objections to externalities.

There are still a lot of externalities that people are cutting corners on, even in the suburbs: proper insurance (by not declaring that you're acting as a hotel), tax (by not declaring airbnb income on your income tax), safety regulations (fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, floor plans etc).

Not that all these laws make sense for airbnb, but by not respecting them you're "unfairly" undercutting hotels.

Re: NY official: Airbnb stay illegal; host fined $2,400

#250

Post by namdnay »

baddox wrote: post #223
nathanstitt wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As HarryHirsch says, no he absolutely does not have that right. Zoning is far from a new invention, it's been around since the industrial revolution at least. I'm honestly shocked that people apparently would want to live in the kind of an environment where at any second the property next door could be turned into a tannery. How could anyone have confidence in their property's value in a society where that was allowe…

There is more than one to solve social problems. Centralized, violent, compulsory action (government) is one way, but there are others. Opposing "the government solution" is not the same thing as denying the problem or refusing to fix it.

How are zoning regulations "violent"?
Post reply on HN