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

71–80 of 171 posts

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#71

Post by natrius »

mc32 wrote: post #27
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.

True enough. They might also only want single family homes to be owner or family occupied only. I think there can be compromises people come to.

Using laws to bias housing stock towards owner-occupancy is explicit economic segregation. Owning a home requires wealth that many families don't have, and they should have an equal right to all neighborhoods.

Segregation is the default in American housing policy to the point that most people treat segregation laws as normal, justifiable things. Every time we make a decision about homes, we should consider the impact it has on different kinds of people.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#72

Post by mc32 »

natrius wrote: post #71
mc32 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough. They might also only want single family homes to be owner or family occupied only. I think there can be compromises people come to.

Using laws to bias housing stock towards owner-occupancy is explicit economic segregation. Owning a home requires wealth that many families don't have, and they should have an equal right to all neighborhoods. Segregation is the default in American housing policy to the point that most people treat segregation laws as normal, justifiable things. Every time we make a decision about homes, we should consider the impact…

Yes, that was my implicit point. We can go to extremes, but we don't have to. We can be reasonable about things. (I am, by the way, such a renter).

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#73

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #66
ubernostrum wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 partie…

Do we want to go down the externalities rabbit hole? Do we tax people who cannot knowingly fiscally responsibly afford to have kids more because their kids cause tax externalities that people who don't have kids have to bear (school, food, health subsidies, quality of life impact, etc.)?

[deleted]

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#74

Post by mikeryan »

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.…

David Campos' poor analogy has pretty much zero relevance to the case at hand.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#75

Post by fizx »

jhchen wrote: post #52
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.

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.…

Plenty of things can go wrong with a place to sleep. Bedbugs, for example.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#76

Post by holografix »

Can't help but think of the obvious time and time again with the faux-sharing economy. Sharing is a pathetic use of neural linguistics, you're not sharing, your not doing anyone a kindness, you're making money and you're providing a service.

Uber and Airbnb will be regulated legislative or through unions. Ask yourself just wtf are cabs so much more inefficient than Uber and hotels more expensive then Airbnb?

Few drivers depend completely on Uber for their income, Airbnb is still on a legal gray zone.

This won't last forever. Uber drivers will unionise, tenants who live around Airbnb hosts will pressure the government for legislation and so will hotel providers.

Uber is pivoting to logistics. What's Airbnb doing? Wouldn't surprise me if they soon build their own hotel.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#78

Post by calbear81 »

tn13 wrote: post #59
rahimnathwani wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're being downvoted because you are not considering land use and zoning issues. Hosts need to register to ensure that they don't convert their properties into full time hotels in buildings designed for residential use.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#79

Post by calbear81 »

jhchen wrote: post #52
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.

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.…

The license is not to ensure you know how to host. It is designed to limit the impact of hosting on neighbors and the housing supply. People didn't sign up to live next to a hotel when they move into a residential neighborhood.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#80

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

There are two parties in the rental car transaction:

    Hertz  Driver
The AirBnB transaction has three parties:

    AirBnB  Host  Guest
While you can construct sentences that look similar for both cases, and the word "license" is used in both contexts, it's a fundamentally different dynamic.
Post reply on HN