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

Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#51

Post by toomuchtodo »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43
paulmd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. There are significant negative externalities associated with transient populations. For starters: Occupational safety (branches falling down and crushing you on a tire swing), fire safety, bedbugs, noise/loud parties, litter, criminal occupancy, secondary vice (drug dens/prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). The problem of a bunch of sailors coming into port has been recognized since antiquity. Skeezy/…

...secondary vice (drug dens/solicitation of prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). Since we are regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, shall we also bring up the possibility of homosexuals engage in sodomy? If that's somehow off limits to regulate, what distinguishes it from the private bedroom activities you bring up?

One occurs as a financial transaction.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#52

Post by jhchen »

epmatsw wrote: post #42
tedmiston wrote: post #20

> David Campos, a supervisor who has been harshly critical of Airbnb, called the ordinance a "modest piece of legislation," according to the San Francisco Chronicle, adding "If you are a rental car agency, you have to make sure the person that you rent that vehicle to has a license before you rent them a car. That is exactly what we are asking the short-term platforms to do here." This analogy is obnoxiously flawed.…

Genuinely curious why the agency:consumer::host:guest is flawed. (agency|host) temporarily allows use of their property by (consumer|guest) in exchange for money.

Driving a car is a complex and potentially dangerous activity, hence the license. A license to rent a place to sleep makes no sense.

Edit: Instead of responding to every single sub comment I will just add that car accidents kill 30,000 people a year. Whether or not you think AirBnB should be regulated, the analogy pairing their activity to the commonly fatal activity of driving is unambiguously on a different level. A more appropriate analogy is perhaps a fishing license.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#53

Post by rahimnathwani »

tedmiston wrote: post #20

> David Campos, a supervisor who has been harshly critical of Airbnb, called the ordinance a "modest piece of legislation," according to the San Francisco Chronicle, adding "If you are a rental car agency, you have to make sure the person that you rent that vehicle to has a license before you rent them a car. That is exactly what we are asking the short-term platforms to do here." This analogy is obnoxiously flawed.…

How is the analogy flawed?

Rental car agencies ensure drivers (who use the agency's cars) are licensed.

AirBnB is being asked to ensure hosts (who use AirBnB's platform) are licensed.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#54

Post by pbreit »

mc32 wrote: post #17

When does Campoes term out anyway? There certainly is a struggle between ownership rights and the right of cities to regulate business within their jurisdiction. As a renter, I can sympathize with wanting to avail more rental properties to renters, but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal. It's not confis…

Your rental agreement (or HOA regs) almost certainly forbids short term rentals.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#55

Post by rahimnathwani »

dkuebric wrote: post #47
epmatsw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious why the agency:consumer::host:guest is flawed. (agency|host) temporarily allows use of their property by (consumer|guest) in exchange for money.

Under your analogy, the host has to make sure the guest is licensed, which is different from the law, which is about the host.

The agency:consumer ~= airbnb:host analogy makes more sense.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#56

Post by pbreit »

gshulegaard wrote: post #36
sp332 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your neighbors might not want you to let out your place to an endless parade of strangers. This is a case where the government needs to listen to the people, and determine if the majority want more freedom or a nicer neighborhood.

Who cares what your neighbors want? Seriously. In the Seventeenth Century many American colonists were fleeing England due to religious persecution because their religion didn't happen to be the the dominant/majority held belief [1]. The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. The specific topic of tyranny of the majority and ways to combat it were discussed in the Federalist…

There's a reason for commercial and residential zoning. There's a reason your landlord and HOA do not permit short term rentals.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#57

Post by tedmiston »

pbreit wrote: post #49
tedmiston wrote: post #20

> David Campos, a supervisor who has been harshly critical of Airbnb, called the ordinance a "modest piece of legislation," according to the San Francisco Chronicle, adding "If you are a rental car agency, you have to make sure the person that you rent that vehicle to has a license before you rent them a car. That is exactly what we are asking the short-term platforms to do here." This analogy is obnoxiously flawed.…

If that analogy (sensible, imo) is too much for you then pretend he was talking about GetAround.

To substitute a p2p car sharing service in place of car rental agency completely changes the meaning...

Driving a vehicle (your own or renting someone else's) is an activity requiring a license for the agency to validate.

I'm unaware of any place in the world requiring a license to sleep and eat breakfast.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#58

Post by int_19h »

afarrell wrote: post #31
bpodgursky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? But then again, the 2nd amendment doesn't allow nuclear weapons, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Would be easy to interpret it as, the right to use residential properties for lodging purposes (hotel, apartments, B&Bs) cannot be violated, without letting you set up industrial operations.

What does "easy" mean here? It is easy to say, "the third amendment really means that A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Amendments." In fact I just did. However, to actually believe that original meaning of the third amendment as believed by the people who negotiated it was to prohibit the federal government from banning boarding houses strain…

Well, I doubt that the people who wrote the Commerce Clause would have dreamed up Wickard v. Filburn in their worst nightmare, either, yet here we are. So, at this point, the majority of federal laws are based on an interpretation of the Constitution that strains credulity far more.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#59

Post by tn13 »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #53
tedmiston wrote: post #20

> David Campos, a supervisor who has been harshly critical of Airbnb, called the ordinance a "modest piece of legislation," according to the San Francisco Chronicle, adding "If you are a rental car agency, you have to make sure the person that you rent that vehicle to has a license before you rent them a car. That is exactly what we are asking the short-term platforms to do here." This analogy is obnoxiously flawed.…

How is the analogy flawed? Rental car agencies ensure drivers (who use the agency's cars) are licensed. AirBnB is being asked to ensure hosts (who use AirBnB's platform) are licensed.

Driving car requires license for various other reason all of us agree with. I don't see why hosts need a license.

Also there is potential stupidity of passing regulations that people wont respect any ways.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#60

Post by ubernostrum »

mc32 wrote: post #17

When does Campoes term out anyway? There certainly is a struggle between ownership rights and the right of cities to regulate business within their jurisdiction. As a renter, I can sympathize with wanting to avail more rental properties to renters, but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal. It's not confis…

politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property

OK, let's completely legalize Airbnb-style temporary rentals... but make the host bear the full cost of it. Not the small fraction of the cost the host thinks about, but the actual cost with all the externalities factored in.

Because really the only way Airbnb works is if it offloads significant costs onto unconsenting and often unaware third parties. And all those goshdurned gubmint regulations? They bring the cost of running a hotel-like business into line with, well, the actual cost of running a hotel-like business. But we can replace them all with just a single charge if you like.

Post reply on HN