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

Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 527 posts

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#501

Post by scarface_74 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #498
scarface_74 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, if you want short term rentals for tourists - build more hotels in commercial districts that are professionally managed.

Vacation homes are a somewhat different kind of thing. In practice, hotels don't support the same use cases or charge exorbitant rates to do so.

It’s amazing how much more it costs to be a legally run, commercial short term rental that is professionally managed , follows all regulations and pays the legally required taxes isn’t it?

BTW, I live in (and own) a vacation home almost permanently - a condotel - that meets all of the above requirements.

In fact we can’t live here more than 179 consecutively without leaving for some time and renting it out to follow the law.

I knew what I signed up for and we made that choice. It would be completely different when we bought our house in the burbs that was zoned “residential”

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/condotel.asp

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#502

Post by phone8675309 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #444
Doxin wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, it used to be about impossible to get into Amsterdam, because of rent control and renting regulations; no supply of places to let. Then AirBnB came along, and everyone and their dog let places on AirBnB. You could get in, and at a good price. Then AirBnB was essentially banned, and now you can't get into Amsterdam. Slightly off topic, and not aimed at you in particular but at tourists in general: For t…

Will you say the same for Paris, London, Rome, Milan, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Beijing, Tokyo, Hongkong, Singapore, and Seoul? All of those cities (and more!) fit this template: "X is expensive and overcrowded." Yeah, and they have lots of interesting culture so people want to visit. They are willing to pay the high prices and put up with crowds.

> Will you say the same for Paris, London, Rome, Milan, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Beijing, Tokyo, Hongkong, Singapore, and Seoul?

Yes

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#503

Post by phone8675309 »

coin wrote: post #484
scarface_74 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a good thing that laws are being passed to make it mostly impossible for AirBnbs to be in residential areas and to make it easier for residents to find affordable houses instead of tourists

Why are residents more deserving than tourists?

Silicon Valley Moment

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#504

Post by theknocker »

endisneigh wrote: post #17

In my experience Airbnb isn’t even cheaper, just has more “interesting” housing available. Back to the topic - removing listings isn’t a sufficient enough punishment imho. And how would you even prove it from the guests side? Take a picture I suppose? But how do you stop bad actors? Not sure what the correct solution is. Someone who wants to spy can purchase a spy camera which is very abundant these days.

[dead]

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#505

Post by throwaway2037 »

ghaff wrote: post #479
throwaway2037 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you say the same for Paris, London, Rome, Milan, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Beijing, Tokyo, Hongkong, Singapore, and Seoul? All of those cities (and more!) fit this template: "X is expensive and overcrowded." Yeah, and they have lots of interesting culture so people want to visit. They are willing to pay the high prices and put up with crowds.

Beat on Instagram influencers all you like but popular cities tend to be popular for good reasons. I might go meh to a few cities on that list but quite a few of them would be high on my visit again list.

That is exactly my point. The OP read like a moaning Amsterdammer. I see it a lot: residents of that city complaining about the tourist crowds. I think a better idea would be a very high tourist tax -- like 100 EUR per day charged via hotels etc. (Business travelers would be exempt.) Then, you can exclude all of the low end tourists that few people want in their crowded cities -- they can enjoy second tier cities, or day trips from a nearby city. I cannot find it now, but there is a group of small Italian seaside villages that implemented something similar to limit the number of tourists. My point: Go for quality of visitors, not quantity. The tourist tax can be used to improve tourist infrastructure.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#506

Post by ghaff »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #505
ghaff wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beat on Instagram influencers all you like but popular cities tend to be popular for good reasons. I might go meh to a few cities on that list but quite a few of them would be high on my visit again list.

That is exactly my point. The OP read like a moaning Amsterdammer. I see it a lot: residents of that city complaining about the tourist crowds. I think a better idea would be a very high tourist tax -- like 100 EUR per day charged via hotels etc. (Business travelers would be exempt.) Then, you can exclude all of the low end tourists that few people want in their crowded cities -- they can enjoy second tier cities, or…

I'm not sure how you distinguish business travelers from tourists. I'm usually a bit of each.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#507

Post by klausa »

closeparen wrote: post #489
klausa wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't mean upgrading to a suite at a "regular" hotel; there are chains specializing in renting out "home-style" rooms ("extended-stay" is the industry term, I believe), and I've seen them referred to suite hotels sometimes. The biggest chains have these sub-brands in the space, based off three minutes of googling/wikiing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residence_Inn_by_Marriott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stayb…

I've never seen an extended-stay hotel in a neighborhood that I would visit for leisure. They're usually in pretty ugly, utilitarian spots - off a cloverleaf or behind a strip mall - serving business travelers.

That's probably true in the US; much less so in Asia or places with good public transit.

There's a Hyatt House I pass by sometimes right next to the Shibuya crossing; though I'm guessing that one definitely does not have the price advantage.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#508

Post by saywhanow »

kshacker wrote: post #410
mlrtime wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Paris tried to curb this buy allowing Airbnb, but you can only rent out max 50% of the year. This makes it so local owners can make some money, but corporations wouldn't be able to get the yield they need at 50% occupancy.

And did it work? I ask because corporates usually figure out how to use the rules to their advantage and I am now trying to sniff through how they would play this.

Can I buy a property, rent it out for six months, then re-sell it to this other, totally independent corporation I own?

This seems both obvious and difficult to prevent.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#509

Post by throwaway2037 »

ghaff wrote: post #506
throwaway2037 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly my point. The OP read like a moaning Amsterdammer. I see it a lot: residents of that city complaining about the tourist crowds. I think a better idea would be a very high tourist tax -- like 100 EUR per day charged via hotels etc. (Business travelers would be exempt.) Then, you can exclude all of the low end tourists that few people want in their crowded cities -- they can enjoy second tier cities, or…

I'm not sure how you distinguish business travelers from tourists. I'm usually a bit of each.

Then don't distinguish. Both pay the same. The goal here is not to increase the cost of doing non-tourism business in your city. Another idea: Allow people travelling on business to apply for a refund. Example: It seems weird to charge a salesperson going to see their client. Business people use city resources and infrastructure in a vastly different way. For example: They don't use (limited) cultural resources in the same way.

Re: Airbnb is banning indoor security cameras

#510

Post by okeuro49 »

casenmgreen wrote: post #52
bombcar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AirBNB "when it started" was quite likely to find you quirky and cheap options. Now it's commoditized and a business, and the quirky and cheap options are few and far between. Part of the degradation is both the company, the sellers, and the buyers - back in the very beginning it wasn't well known and most of the customers were well behaved - I'm not sure that's entirely the case now, as the customer base has grown.

I'm a digital nomad. One luggage, no permanent home, been fifteen years. I used to use AirBnB all the time. They gradually become more and more, well, "large company". Governments gradually made AirBnB illegal or effectively illegal, largely or wholly killing off AirBnB in given cities, or countries. For example, it used to be about impossible to get into Amsterdam, because of rent control and renting regulations; no…

> now you can't get into Amsterdam.

On the plus side, locals can still find somewhere to rent, and Amsterdam hasn't turned into a theme park.

Post reply on HN