DIY B&B

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaugust_2012/features/diy_bb038421.php

by scarmig • 14 years ago

114 186 14 years ago

washingtonmonthly.com

mvkel• 14 years ago

Thanks for answering the question in the headline! Now I don't need to read the article.

tokenadult• 14 years ago

From the article:

"For more than a year now, New York City has been enforcing a new state law that makes it illegal for homeowners like Hogan to rent out their house or apartment for less than a month. All across the city, police raids have shut down hundreds of similar informal bed-and-breakfast establishments, with nearly 1,900 different violations issued in under twelve months. Often, the fees associated with the citations stretch into tens of thousands of dollars. Hogan was threatened with a $25,000 fine—all for marketing the empty rooms in his house.

. . . .

"The crackdown in New York is similar to ones happening in several major European cities. Paris, for instance, passed a law in 2005 banning the rental of any residential property for less than a year, and began enforcing that law in 2010. London is now engaging in a wave of enforcement in the run-up to the 2012 Summer Olympics."

This is the first journalistic report I have seen of such widespread, persistent enforcement actions. Is this the general experience of HN participants (and, especially, Airbnb participants) in your part of the world? What is your rating of the risk of being cited for a local law violation if you list your place as a short-term rental online?

blaines5• 14 years ago

I had to take my couch offline because my HOA threatened to fine me. No more visitors, no more foreign friends. :(

It seems the first wave of enforcement has come from HOAs, I've heard of various people having to remove their listing for that reason. [1]

Now it appears, according to the article above, municipal authorities are pushing back. Could this be a result of lobbying from hotels? Vacation rentals is not a new concept, and couchsurfing has been around for years as well. It seems that just because couchsurfing/vacation rentals are getting a wider audience that it's now suddenly a problem.

I personally don't want my HOA or government telling me who I can or can not have over to stay. Their place is not in my home.

1: http://betabeat.com/2011/05/airbnb-takes-manhattan-with-2k-b...

makmanalp• 14 years ago

HOAs make me want to puke. Why did you agree to join anyway?

sliverstorm• 14 years ago

... telling me who I can or can not have over to stay.

They aren't telling you who you can or can not have over, they are prohibiting you from having temporary guests that pay.

Why? Well, an establishment that houses temporary guests traditionally has to answer to health & safety codes and regulations. Under-the-radar AirBnB rentals circumvent that system.

You'd probably get similar kickback if you tried running an informal restaurant out of your home. "Who is the government to tell me who I can and can not serve food!" Well, restaurant health codes, that's who.

scarmig4• 14 years ago

Well, municipalities have had similar rules for awhile, though more often to be used as a stick against people engaging in arguably socially harmful behavior. And at least in the case of HOA, more often than not a contract was signed in the beginning that explicitly forbids that type of arrangement.

Which sucks, but it is the free market. Just goes to show that contract rights aren't enough to ensure freedom.

tgrass10• 14 years ago

HOAs are a whole different beast when it comes to the discussion of markets and property rights.

You choose to join an HOA.

btipling• 14 years ago

These laws seems to curb an efficient market process, which I don't like if true.

Also I think the government loses out on special taxes from Hotel business, but maybe those taxes could also be collected from these B&B type operations? Hotels have no business using the law to fight a competitive threat, in my opinion anyway. Does not seem to make sense to me.

olefoo2• 14 years ago

This looks like a classic example of regulatory capture, where the regulator becomes an effective barrier to new entrants to the market.

Factor in the concentrated nature of the hotel industry (fewer of them, more at stake) and you can see why they are motivated and able to put pressure on the bureaucracy.

The whole thing does strike me as morally irresponsible in that a city with a persistent and undealt with homeless problem should not be limiting the availability of housing units until the blatant market failure has been dealt with.

jtbigwoo3• 14 years ago

Red herring. These people are not inviting the homeless into their homes. They are operating a hotel/B&B without following any registration, safety, health, or tax rules.

rprasad12• 14 years ago

The competition is not homeowners. As noted many times by others, the competition is "home owners" who use AirBNB to run undeclared hotels out of their buildings, evading the costs and taxes associated with a declared hotel. This obviously hurts other hotels, who cannot compete with such costs. Over time, this can (but not necessarily will) drive down hotel investment in upgrades and maintenance, making the city less attractive to visitors.

This also hurts renters--rooms that would otherwise be rented out to long-term tenants (monthly or longer) are now instead "rented" out to transient visitors. This decreases the available supply of units to renters, driving up prices across the board.

sadga• 14 years ago

The startup opportunity here is to streamline the process of registering a legal and proper B&B.

AirBnB should be doing this already to clear the cloud around their business, but doing so would be an admission that their current practices are abetting illegal activity.

tgrass10• 14 years ago

Agreed. And AirBnB would be wise to get involved politically on that front. There are the armchair ideals of unregulated markets, and then there is the reality of politically connected interests pushing legislation.

jemfinch• 14 years ago

The title of this submission is unnecessarily sensational and editorializing. Using your home as an ad hoc bed and breakfast is not the same as renting it out.

scarmig4• 14 years ago

I'll change the title to be a bit better.

DanielBMarkham2• 14 years ago

Just about every year for as long as I can remember, my family has taken a summer vacation at a beach about 300 miles away. We always stay in a hotel.

Over time, the beach has gotten tacky. Big billboards. Lots of nightlife. Amusement park rides. All kinds of things that reek of Las Vegas, but not so much a relaxing family vacation.

So this year we decided to try something different. I got onto VRBO online and picked out a beach house 1000 miles away in Florida. The owner included pictures, and there were lots of references and reviews for me to assess risk beforehand. I sent them a check -- which they could have cashed and absconded with -- and we drove down on the day scheduled.

It was the best beach vacation we've ever had. In addition, it was half or a third as much as our previous vacations.

Vested interests can fight as much as they want, but this is a done deal: people own their stuff and they're damn well liable to do what they want to with it. If I can sell you a 8-passenger airplane without warranty, you can certainly come stay at my house for an night or two. Laws which were used to increase the quality of hotel stays back in 1890 have extremely little applicability today.

I don't know if we're going to use the same house again this year -- the owner was magnificent, and I'm not about to share where it was! -- but I know that we'll be sticking to this model for a good while.

tgrass10• 14 years ago

In 1890 it was not uncommon to rent a room in one's house to a stranger either.

jtbigwoo3• 14 years ago

In defense of these laws, that sort of thing was generally for a month or longer which is not against the law in New York. Short term stays were the domain of hotels.

Unoeufisenough• 14 years ago

It's not about consumer protection. That's just a smoke screen. It's entirely about government revenue. Municipal taxes, sales taxes and government fees. Hotels and taxis and the like have to pay them and AirBnB and private rental models typically don't. By disrupting these models, these new services cut off revenues to cities and make it harder to justify the high taxes they milk the traditional businesses and tourists for. And cities are broke these days. And guess what, local voters also love (whether they realize it or not) the idea of raising taxes on out-of-towners instead of themselves whenever possible.

arahuja• 14 years ago

This is a very different situation in NYC.

1) Most people live in apartments, therefore a person who is an approved tenant is now inviting an un-approved tenant to take there place, giving them access to the building and common areas.

2) More importantly most NYC apartment buildings are co-ops and not condos. They are usually selective about owners and have appropriate sublet policy. Most Air BnB type sites would violate the sublet agreements in co-ops.

There need to be some protection for those that live in apartment buildings and don't share the same feelings about short-term sublets.

derleth2• 14 years ago

> people own their stuff and they're damn well liable to do what they want to with it

Morally true, perhaps, but not legally the case.

It's another example of how laws are extremely difficult to enforce if they go against the public morality; an extreme example was how difficult it was to outlaw dueling until the fashion finally turned against the practice.

A more modern example is how most people really want laws against plagiarism instead of the copyright laws we actually have in most of the world: People get up in arms if someone plagiarizes someone else's work, but will gladly support copyright violators who are scrupulous about proper attribution.

A large number of people seem to think that's actually how the law works. This doesn't stop any prosecutions, but it makes the prosecutions no more effective than trying to bail out the Titanic with a colander.

So shall it be with this law, I predict.

scarmig4• 14 years ago

I'd argue not even morally true. I support drug legalization, but I definitely want legal protections against someone else setting up a meth lab in the condo next to me. Externalities nearly always exist, and market imperfection makes it impossible to contract them away.

It's a genuinely thorny issue in this case, though. On the one hand, you can easily imagine mechanisms where allowing widespread commercial short term tenancy in your building would increase crime rates and put your own self and property at risk. At the same time, it's abhorrent to me to imagine my condo building saying that I can't have non-paying visitors over several nights per week, which would likely have identical effects.

So where does the line fall?

larrys6• 14 years ago

"but this is a done deal: people own their stuff and they're damn well liable to do what they want to with it."

Not speaking specifically about your situation and experience which was positive for you but the laws also have other purposes. For example when you live in certain residential neighborhoods you're not expecting to have transient population.

Many communities restrict single family homes to "1 family" and many condo buildings restrict rentals to "1 lease per year" to prevent occupancy by people who presumably create a different atmosphere than regulars.

"the owner was magnificent, and I'm not about to share where it was!"

I love the old school way of thought. (Reminds me of not wanting to share a good mechanic or babysitter for fear that they won't be available when needed for ones own work!)

nostromo2• 14 years ago

> Vested interests can fight as much as they want, but this is a done deal

I think this is absolutely the case. Right now we're seeing what happened in the early days of Napster. The RIAA and governments were shocked shocked at the widespread disregard for the law. Now a decade or so later it's common and widely accepted that breaking copyright is just something that happens.

Airbnb & Homeaway/VRBO & Craigslist are currently the exchanges for a p2p transaction, like Napster or Kazaa were for music. I suspect they will be targeted by existing interests and governments and they might even be taken down in some jurisdictions. But if they do, more will pop up in their place, as always seems to be the case in distributed p2p markets.

majormajor• 14 years ago

I expect the endgame to be similar. In some number of years, there will be "legitimate" ways of doing this, that let the governments take taxes easily and provide some sort of baseline regulation/dispute-settling/insurance, like how the Napsters and Kazaas paved the way and eventually led to services that work more inside the system instead of usurping the system. The under-the-table versions will never go away entirely, but if you can give me a basically hassle-free way of doing the same thing in a sanctioned manner (were I looking to rent out some space of my own, I'd greatly prefer a service that took care of the insurance, liability, and legality issues for me), I'm going to choose that. The question I'd love to know the answer to is just how much AirBNB plans on working with governments and insurers.

hell0_th3r38• 14 years ago

don't be so sure. in los gatos a woman tried to turn her lovingly restored victorian into a bed & breakfast and vigilant neighbors shut it down. people who are paying $1 mln and up to live in a neighborhood will know what is happening and will vigorously defend their zoning

DanBC2• 14 years ago

> people own their stuff and they're damn well liable to do what they want to with it.

You own your car. You are not allowed to set up as a cab service without some kind of insurance and registration.

You own your home; you own the kitchen. You could not set up as a restaurant without a bunch of paperwork.

> Laws which were used to increase the quality of hotel stays back in 1890 have extremely little applicability today.

I want there to be an effective fire escape in case the building burns down. Is that law irrelevant?

I want the hotel to have a clean kitchen. Is that law irrelevant?

I would agree that perhaps there's too much paperwork for businesses.

(http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/02/confiscating-your-ice-cream-...)

sopooneo2• 14 years ago

I would argue that your very sensible demands, for a sanitary kitchen and proper fire escape, can be seen to by market forces. Only rent AirBnB places whose reviews convince you they are appropriate. You can not be the only one who feels as you do. And with a new market like this, where people would not reasonably expect the automatic protection they ostensibly enjoy at traditional hotels, it is all the more plausible that they will select and review places sufficiently.

dmk23• 14 years ago

This is a classic example of anti-competitive market fixing, masquerading as a "regulation to protect consumers" or somesuch.

There is no legitimate justification to infringe on a contract between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but to actually fight these crackdowns you have to spend lots of $$$ on local political campaigns in every municipality. Easier said than done. Unless that massive lobbying investment (or at least a publicity campaign, like SOPA boycotts) happen the entrenched interests win by default and lots of peer-to-peer transactions will move to gray/black market.

Prohibition always creates speakeasies and the organized crime to protect them.

EDIT: To address "devil advocates", yes, most regulation mandated and enforced by government is a terrible imposition. Self-regulation that preserves consumer choice is a much better idea. You want to pay extra $$$ for a better level of service / protection /etc? Make it an optional line item with explicit cost.

digitalengineer• 14 years ago

Agreed. Low service, high price and no (affordable) rooms available during high-traffic events caused competition like AirBnB. The hotels can't win by competing, so now they'll try to change the law. Not save for guests huh? Entire families with kids live in those houses. They were build by the usual and strict building safety-standards. A sprinkler in every room? What regular house has that? The hotel-lobby using politicians and politicians using FUD to do their bidding.

untog2• 14 years ago

There is no legitimate justification to infringe on a contract between a willing buyer and a willing seller

Devils advocate: are food standards also a terrible imposition? The government insists on coming around to all the restaurants in the city and inspecting them to make sure that no-one will be poisoned or killed by the food they eat. How dare they stand in between a willing buyer and seller. Right? Right?

Food standards, restaurant inspections, building codes, health and safety codes... the list goes on. Are they all illegitimate attempts to stand between a willing buyer and seller?

mseebach3• 14 years ago

While not always perfectly implemented, the government acts as representatives of the buyers in that transaction.

cgmorton• 14 years ago

If my friend grows tomatoes in her back yard, should I be prohibited and fined for eating one without it first being inspected?

Inspections are there because large institutions don't always take the care they should, and as a consumer I sure as hell want -somebody- to look into it. If it weren't a government institution then I'd expect some sort of company to do it, and any restaurant that hadn't gotten inspected I would avoid.

On the other hand I -don't- worry when I use Air-BnB, because it has reviews that signify quality, and because there's not much that can go wrong with sleeping on a couch.

dreamdu5t2• 14 years ago

It has little to do with the reasons for regulating food, and everything to do with the means. In order to keep me from buying soda, you have to forcibly come between the peaceful and free association of me and another person.

You're not going to convince me that I would still buy raw milk, or that pasteurized milk would be unavailable, in the absence of FDA regulation.

essayist• 14 years ago

Restaurant health codes do exactly that. It seems to me that there are relatively few "black market" or "under the table" restaurants. (Yes, there are food trucks, but it's a recent and relatively smallscale phenomenon.)

Of course, this doesn't make health codes good, necessarily.

But what I'm more interested in - what kinds of prohibitions lead to speakeasies/organized crime, and what don't, particuarly on the scale of the Prohibition, with Al Capone, Elliot Ness, etc. ??

hell0_th3r38• 14 years ago

There is no legitimate justification to infringe on a contract between a willing buyer and a willing seller

this was a common refrain of slave holders - it was a pure market mechanism, the buyer and seller agreed on a price, why does the govt care?

vaksel2• 14 years ago

yeah if they only cared about protecting consumers, instead of fines, they'd let you pay a few bucks to get your house inspected.

geebee4• 14 years ago

There is another factor - many people don't want to live in a neighborhood with a highly transient population. I posted a link to a nytimes article about this above... I think a lot of this comes down to whether you feel that changing the nature of a neighborhood (fewer long term residents) is a legitimate reason for a neighborhood to regulate short term rentals.

As you can probably tell from my phrasing, I do think it is. I wish I had a cite, but I do remember reading an article about the actual, monetary value of good long term relations with neighbors... there is an argument to be made that short term rentals are selling not just the unit but the neighborhood itself, and doing some harm to the neighborhood in the process. If that is the case, this is an externality that could be legitimately regulated.

will_work4tears• 14 years ago

Maybe AirBnB's solution to this is some kind of timeshare setup for cities with the time-limit laws.

You purchase the joint right to use the house x/365 days a year, but your "lease" is a month/year long.

Might not get around the safety type laws though.

robomartin2• 14 years ago

This is really troubling and sickening. It's your property and you should be able to do as you please with it. What is the value of ownership if what you own is under government and HOA control? Disgusting.

The fact that we allow government to get involved in our personal lives at this level should scare everyone. They are telling some of these people that they can't earn money to make-up for the fact that they fell upon hard times by using the one asset that they work so hard to acquire. You can't even rent your couch? This isn't right.

As for the hotel industry. Well, offer a better product at good prices with exceptional service and you'll keep your customers. In other words: Compete.

raganwald• 14 years ago

It's your property and you should be able to do as you please with it.

What if you decide to start charging strangers to eat dinner at your house. Does the government have a right to start inspecting your kitchen? What if you take children in during the day. Should the givernment have any say in your qualifications as a day care operator or the conditions of your property?

Corruption is a problem that should be solved. Regulation of business to enforce standards of health and safety is exactly what the government is supposed to be doing.

rprasad12• 14 years ago

Try to run a pig farm on your home and see how far you get with that. The law of "nuisance" has existed for hundreds of years. Your right to use your property extends only as far as the limits of your property. If any of the effects spill over to your neighbors, they have the right to limit what you can do with your property (to the extent of the "spill over"). This has been basic American/British property law for centuries.

robomartin2• 14 years ago

No disagreement with that at all. How does that relate to renting my couch or a room?

cletus• 14 years ago

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the negative reaction to this here. The HN demographic is presumably tilted towards young men.

What those criticisms seem to be neglecting is that those--particularly for apartment buildings--these temporary visitors impact beyond just you.

In Australia, for example, one useful metric used by people when assessing apartment buildings to buy in is to look at the ratio of owner-occupiers vs renters. Generally the more owner-occupiers, the better the building.

Renters don't tend to look after properties, tend to be less mindful of behaviour that impacts the neighbours (parties, etc), etc.

This goes even moreso for really short-term tenants. There have been examples of this already (like the woman who had her house trashed in SF after renting it out on AirBnB). Such extreme examples aside, you are raising the risk of damage or theft to the property of others by bringing a stream of strangers into your home.

Yes most of the time it works out just fine but sometimes it doesn't and your neighbours didn't sign up for you opening a hotel.

Would people feel the same way if someone was operating a brothel in their house or apartment? After all, it's their property and they can do with it as they please right? What about operating a bar or a club?

This is not as one-sided as some suggest.

tgrass10• 14 years ago

I am a father, and I rent. Are my rights less (as proxied by my landlord) than my neighbor who owns an underwater house?

[EDIT] When I go down to the polling station on election day, I assure you my rights are equal.

sp3322• 14 years ago

edit OK I misunderstood. skip this post :)

Yes, of course. Starting with the obvious, your landlord could just throw you out. Your agreement almost certainly prevents you from making significant changes to the structure of the building. You can't sell the property. Your rights are much, much less than your neighbor.

mattgreenrocks• 14 years ago

Plenty of HOAs would consider you less desirable. Which is completely wrong, of course.

(personally I consider the super-serious-HOA-attending-is-my property-value-always-increasing-neurotic undesirable, but that's just my bias.)

mhurron• 14 years ago

> Would people feel the same way if someone was operating a brothel in their house or apartment? After all, it's their property and they can do with it as they please right? What about operating a bar or a club?

That's the way you're going to go with it? Why don't you try it. You'll find that those issues are actually already handled by local laws in most places.

blaines5• 14 years ago

Exactly, there's laws in place that already prohibit running a business out of a home. Specific business types and activities apply, for instance, you cannot start a farm unless it has been zoned accordingly. In addition some cities have limits on what type, and how many animals you keep on premises. On the contrary, it is typically acceptable to have a garden and sell your crop or have a chicken and sell it's eggs (say, at a farmers market).

nostromo2• 14 years ago

You're forgetting that this problem is already solved by contract law.

Tenants sign agreements not to rent out their units all the time. Home owner's associations often have rules against short-term rentals as well.

If you don't like the idea of short-term rentals in your neighborhood or building, choose one protected by one of these types of contracts. In fact, they're so common, you probably already have such protections, even if you don't know it.

The government making something illegal really should be the last resort for societal problems. I'm not convinced short-term rentals are really so harmful as to meet that threshold.

muzz• 14 years ago

If you own a single-family detached home, this is not likely to be the case (if there is no HOA).

tptacek15• 14 years ago

What's the contract law remedy for a tenant in a building whose unscrupulous landlord has decided to dump his spare inventory onto Airbnb as an ad hoc hostel? Break the lease? Sue for moving costs and to recover the security deposite? What if you're rent-controlled and the landlord says "go ahead, break the lease! woohoo!"?

What's the contract law remedy for unscrupulous businesspeople who buy entire buildings and convert them into Airbnb hostels?

I've used and appreciated Airbnb, but I think 'cletus is ultimately right and threads like this have a hard time of seeing the (valid) other side of this issue.

larrys6• 14 years ago

"The government making something illegal really should be the last resort for societal problems."

Except that the ease to which people can now rent out an apartment short term has created a situation that was not contemplated by existing laws (or if there were existing laws they were not violated to the extent to make enforcement necessary).

Let's take as an example, spam. The founding fathers of the Internet didn't anticipate that the scholarly people who first used the internet would violate the unwritten rules to not spam. The community was small enough and the members respectful enough that it wasn't even designed into the system (let's assume there could have been a technical way to prevent spam in the original design for a second).

But with the success of the internet and it being opened up to everyone the game changed.

"I'm not convinced short-term rentals are really so harmful"

If you've ever had bad neighbors you will understand why people often want a single family home with lots of land or want to live in an exclusive building.

rprasad12• 14 years ago

Once you have children (or nieces/nephews), there is a 100% chance that you will feel differently about short-term rentals.

Long-term rentals indicate tenants that are stable enough to at least afford the lease. They are subject to at least some vetting (including background checks) prior to moving in. Short term tenants can be anyone. No background checks are conducted.

tsieling• 14 years ago

What does gender have to do with opinions about whether someone should be able to rent out a room in a building they own?

Renters don't tend to look after properties. No, that's why it's called rent and they have property managers or landlords who have that responsibility. That said, I've been in my rented place for 12yrs and take good care of it, as do other tenants in our building. Myth busted.

How would I feel if someone opened a brothel? Not great, but then AirBnB doesn't really cater to brothel operations, and those don't usually fly by night so what point that is supposed to make other than setting up a BS false dichotomy (restrict renting or live with the sex trade next door).

Bars and clubs are regulated by zoning, so how would that ever happen?

The point is that a scummy hotel industry is trying to hedge out competition by using deep pockets to lobby local government into reinforcing their monopoly. Making apologies for them puts you against people like the guy in the article: hard times, tries to make a few extra bucks and gets shut down by the five cops at his door. Sound like America to you? Sound like he was opening a brothel? Look him in his unemployed eye and call the cops on him while you do.

hell0_th3r38• 14 years ago

they don't "own" the property and the word "owner" does not appear on anyone's deed (don't believe me? go read your own)

you are a tenant on the land, and your deed says this. the county is the owner.

excuse-me• 14 years ago

On the other hand it is quite heartening that New York has improved to the point that this is now the top of the priority list for the police.

I remember New York when any murder of less than a dozen people wasn't worth bothering with.

pacaro2• 14 years ago

The AirBnB brothel sounds like an intriguing idea.

I wonder if it exists? The room with a higher than expected rate and veiled hints of extra "amenities"...

larrys6• 14 years ago

"Generally the more owner-occupiers, the better the building."

Same from my experience on the east coast. I will assume that's universal.

"Renters don't tend to look after properties, tend to be less mindful of behaviour that impacts the neighbours (parties, etc), etc."

Once again true from my experience. And here we aren't even talking about longer term rentals. We are talking about days and the fact that you could literally have 50 to 200 different occupants per year greatly increasing the chance statistically that there would be some people who might cause problems.

"you are raising the risk of damage or theft to the property of others by bringing a stream of strangers into your home."

Iirc, while the Fred Wilson emails with PG regarding airbnb didn't reveal this I feel that this fear of strangers and what they can do played into his thinking as far as not wanting to invest in airbnb. It was my gut immediate reaction.

Edit: http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/17/fred-wilson-o...

tptacek15• 14 years ago

And remember, in those mails, the idea being discussed was the risk to the apartment owner of having their stuff owned. But in many NYC buildings --- including the NYC ABNB rentals I've had --- access to the apartment includes access to the front gate and the front door; in other words, it creates additional access to the apartments of every renter in the building, whether or not they themselves have opted in to Airbnb.

barmstrong• 14 years ago

You're right that short term renters change the value of a property, but you still have all your work ahead of you to show why it should actually be illegal (having the police come raid people).

What you described is handled quite well by regular contracts between tenants/landlords. If a tenant signs a lease where short term rentals aren't allowed and violates it then they can be evicted, lose their deposit, etc. Similarly, landlords who don't allow it could face slightly lower rents by losing tenants who want more flexibility. In other words, it reaches a balance as people negotiate contracts.

There is a big difference between violating a lease and making something illegal.

tptacek15• 14 years ago

I think 'cletus is using "apartment" in its generic sense.

There's no question that most leases are done on boilerplate contracts that forbid Airbnb-type arrangements, often by spelling out by name each of the occupants, but at the least almost invariably specifying that the landlord gets reasonable approval over any sublessor. I'm sure there are pinholes to be poked in this point but I think as a general rule of thumb we can stipulate: apartment renters cannot lawfully put their apartments up on Airbnb, and the simplest remedy to them doing so is indeed to evict and then sue them.

But getting back to 'cletus point: focus your attention on those "apartments" we call "condos". If your association contracts are good, there are remedies for Airbnb abuse here too, but they're nowhere nearly as clean as the remedies for apartment renters.

Or, here's another wrinkle: go back to the apartment rental scenario, but stipulate that the landlord doesn't care to assert their right to curb Airbnb abuse. What recourse do the other renters in the building have now? They probably do have some; for instance, they can break their lease. But this is messy.

drcube• 14 years ago

So, your argument is that no one should open bars ever? Unless the neighbors get to vote and agree on it? Who counts as a neighbor? (I understand "the city" represents the neighbors and passes zoning laws, etc. That this is currently the case doesn't make it right.)

Yes, someone should be able to operate a brothel or bar on their own property. I don't see why this is even controversial, but for some reason it is incredibly so.

If the neighbors don't like it, they can move. As long as the owner isn't physically harming anyone, they should be left alone on their own property.

This whole argument is disingenuous, however, since the people complaining aren't neighbors, but hotels pissed off at having competition.

scarmig4• 14 years ago

Well, the bar example is fairly interesting: in lots of localities, that's exactly how things work. This is one thing that leads to bar or nightlife districts in cities, as no other residential areas want to deal with the issues caused by bars.

It is hotels complaining, for now, and I don't think anyone is taking the POV that we should respect their legally privileged position just because they already have it. But a lot of these and similar laws have existed for awhile, because various bad actors have abused short term renting in the past. And if Airbnb and similar setups become more widespread (as they're bound to do), we do want to have some legal framework to deal with issues as they arise.

gojomo3• 14 years ago

All true, but the power of persistent online reputations can mitigate these negatives better than inflexible 20th-century-style regulations.

hell0_th3r38• 14 years ago

ever heard of astroturfing? after working on a listings site, i automatically assume 80% of ratings and reviews and astroturfed

te_platt• 14 years ago

What you say is true and there are competing interests to be balanced. Still, it seems the pressure to disallow short term renting is coming from business interests rather than neighbor complaints.

danking00• 14 years ago

I'd like to focus solely on the issue of "your neighbours didn't sign up for you opening a hotel". Of course my neighbors have a right to not be unreasonably disturbed by my own existence. Most communities have noise violation laws and other citations for creating an undesirable atmosphere.

The folks offering short-term rents are not excused from such laws. Why do we need new laws? If your neighbor's short-term tennats are loud assholes, make a noise complaint.

rprasad12• 14 years ago

And what will that solve? In a day or two the tenants will be gone, replaced by other loud assholes. The complaint solves nothing, as the neighbor has no reason to punish the original assholes who have already left.

The assholes problem is why we have restrictions against short-term leases in so many areas. (Most such restrictions predate AirBNB, despite what the article would have you believe.)

rayiner2• 14 years ago

It's like saying: there is no need for zoning, if industrial activity creates noises/hazards, just sue!

There is a place for piecemeal litigation of individual disputes. There is also a place for regulation and zoning to maintain order, especially in a large, tightly-packed city.

eps2• 14 years ago

Noise issues are secondary to security and common area maintenance issues.

smokeyj3• 14 years ago

So much text, so little substance. Let's sum up your arguments for why this is good.

1) HN wouldn't understand because they're young men

2) Value of property in an area can go down

3) Property can suffer damages

4) Rentals may inconvenience neighbors

All these points can be overcome without eroding our property rights. While values of homes can go down, they can also go up. Property can be damaged, but it can also be insured. Rentals may inconvenience neighbors, but disturbing the peace is already a crime.

huhtenberg2• 14 years ago

> Property can be damaged, but it can also be insured.

You are missing the point. I don't want common property in my condo building to be damaged, period. It just spoils my day.

ericabiz2• 14 years ago

I'm female; I rent out my guest room on Airbnb. I have no idea what this has to do with gender. (NB: I own my house, do not live in an area with a HOA, and do not live in a city with an ordinance against short-term rentals.) I've also frequently stayed at other Airbnb properties and always had a pleasant experience.

Here's the real issue: So many people say this industry needs regulation. I don't necessarily agree; I lean Libertarian and tend to think the market will take care of itself. I have an incentive to make my guests super happy because I know they will write bad reviews and my days making extra money via Airbnb will be over if I don't treat them well.

Having said that, even if you do agree that the industry needs regulation, this isn't regulation! This is heavy-handed making an entrepreneurial venture illegal because of vested interests who are threatened by said entrepreneurial venture. As an entrepreneur and someone who's in favor of eliminating middlemen in general, I'm against this form of regulation.

Airbnb issues 1099's to its customers, so I do pay taxes on the money I make from it. If the city wants me to get a license and inspections, I might also be okay with that. But I'm firmly against making this illegal, no matter what strawmen others might throw up. (Heck, there is a "Hotel Hell" show coming out in August here in the U.S. featuring Gordon Ramsay screaming at hotel owners who have cockroaches and bedbugs. I've certainly never had that sort of experience at an Airbnb rental.)

As citizens, we have the right to make our own decisions. As a citizen and a voter, I hope we can start a campaign much like we did against SOPA and PIPA to help make sure our voices are heard. I'm sure these cities have heard plenty from hotels. Now it's our turn.

tptacek15• 14 years ago

Municipalities aren't making this unlawful. Running unregulated unlicensed undocumented hotels has been illegal for decades.

What you're asking is for people to engage in activism to overturn statutes and codes that every major city already has on the books. What statutes and codes do you propose to replace them with?

rayiner2• 14 years ago

> I lean Libertarian and tend to think the market will take care of itself.

What AirBnB does is profit from an externality. When a company can profit by shifting risk to other parties who are not in contractual privity (and thus cannot bargain for consideration in return for assuming that risk), it's a classic case of where government regulation is required. AirBnB is a textbook example of this little bit of Econ 101. They shift the inherent risk of running a hotel business onto not just the hosts, but to the neighbors of the hosts, who are not parties to the rental contract.

kirillzubovsky2• 14 years ago

Before you suggest that short-term rentals through AirBnB impact your living standards, you should try to rent your own place on AirBnB, as well as go travel and stay at AirBnB locations. You'd be pleasantly surprised that most visitors are decent human beings and don't have a mission to destroy someone's property. At least, this has been my experience with AirBnB.

Saying that "one person complained, once .." is just silly. Wherever you live, you may have a bad neighbor, but that doesn't mean your entire condo building is full of them. More so, if your bad neighbor buys a condo or a house right next door to yours, there's nothing you can do about it either. With short-term rentals, you at least know that less fitting people are only staying for a few days.

Finally, the only reason this issue is getting a lot of attention is because AirBnB is so freaking successful. Before them, you could find any short term rental, but you'd go to Craigslist to find it. You'd then have to connect with some shady people and pay them in cash, upon your arrival. With Airbnb, you get quality postings in great location, hosted by some really great folks. Travelers love it and use it. Because of that, hotel industry is getting upset. This small SF-based startup just kicked them where it hurts and shows no signs of slowing down. As a result, hotels are using outdated legal system in order to get their way.

Unless you never travel anywhere beyond your backyard or you just love to give up all your money to the hotel owners, you should be jumping up and down and cheering for AirBnB and for short-term guests in your area.

flatline33• 14 years ago

Your position is painfully naive. A bad neighbor is a part of the community, and has to engage with that community. There are HOA rules, local laws, and social constructs that keep neighborly relations largely above board. We select neighborhoods based on the community.

Transient tenants are not part of the community. They are not answerable to the community. Invariably a great deal of them will be poor members of the community, especially in an apartment building, and especially given that they're on vacation (and the rest of us aren't): late nights, smoking, drunken antics, or in the case of our building -- lighting the roof deck on fire by dropping smoldering cigarettes on flammable material.

> Unless you never travel anywhere beyond your backyard or you just love to give up all your money to the hotel owners, you should be jumping up and down and cheering for AirBnB and for short-term guests in your area.

People pay for hotels because they provide deterministic quality. I know that when I show up, the room will be clean, ready, and of a certain level of quality. It's less for me to worry about; worrying about the accommodations is not something I want to spend time on.

For some people, that determinism is not worth the money, or is not even something they're looking for. AirBNB offers an option for those people, but at significant cost to the surrounding community and commons.

slug• 14 years ago

Well, I used AirBnB in the past and have only good things to say about it, until I tried to find a short-term (month) stay in a big US city. I noticed that more and more people are using AirBnB to advertise their more expensive daily/weekly stays instead of posting to craigslist with a monthly stay. So the middle ground (monthly) is also being disrupted, not sure if I'm happy about it now :)

adrr• 14 years ago

If you plan to be in your house for a long time, driving down property values is a good thing as you will have lower property tax. I never thought property value was a good argument. Its not constrained by law or morals. Its all about demand. For example, a minority neighborhood will have lower property values for a similar white neighborhood. Now apply your logic about property values. The thing about bars and brothels, is that they are public nuisances. Bars are loud and brothels you have people coming(no pun intended) and going all night.

A better argument would be about health regulations and competition. It is unfair advantage for these home motels because they don't have to abide by regulations and aren't even required to be insured/bonded. There's also a public safety risk since health regulations aren't being followed.

larrys6• 14 years ago

"negative reaction to this here. The HN demographic is presumably tilted towards young men."

I'm pretty sure you could actually correlate with life experiences as well (even though age and life experience correlate).

Someone who has not been burned and who hasn't seen or experienced some negative consequence of being open is going to tend to have a negative reaction when something like this is discussed. They don't know what they don't know.

tgrass10• 14 years ago

1 in 4 homes [EDIT: mortgages] are underwater.[1]

If the goal by which we make neighborhood/city wide planning decisions is the ability to "look after" one's property, I propose homeowners are clearly more socially derelict and likely to ignore the community.

[only partially sarcastic]

1. http://nationalmortgageprofessional.com/news30381/nearly-24-...

praxulus• 14 years ago

1 in 4 mortgages, which is less than 1 in 4 homes.

joebottherobot3• 14 years ago

I tend to disagree about short-term renters not looking after the place. As an Airbnb host I find that most of my guests leave the place cleaner than when I left it. I imagine this is because a) they are cognizant that it is the property of another person b) there is a reputation attached with their stay. I also have peace of mind that if the place gets trashed it will be covered by the million dollar guarantee.

TheIronWolf• 14 years ago

Disclaimer: I'm a current Airbnb employee

I've traveled & stayed in Airbnbs quite a bit and have met the full range of hosts: those just doing it for fun & to meet people, working to cover their rent, allowing themselves the freedom to cut down work and finish their book, work on their startup, bring their B&B business back after 1 bad trip advisor review, and on and on. These are honest, good people with a variety of motivations. I've never stayed with a host that is doing it to screw over their landlord, spite the hotel industry or trouble their neighbors. Similarly, we aren't crafting our product to damn the man - we are driven by the lives we are enhancing by existing.

Regarding opening a brothel, bar or club in their dwelling? Think of it this way: if your neighbor has parties, all of the activities of those establishments can/will happen. As far as neighbors go some will not care and others will. If it is degrading your quality of life or endangering your wellbeing - then talk to the person and explain your side, file a complaint or whatever it takes to feel safe again.

As a side note, I am not a host. As I signed the lease my landlord said "I know you work for Airbnb and it's unfortunately not allowed in this building." I want to be host for a number of reasons but I've been told no, and that is fine. Though it is certainly a bummer.

Harj• 14 years ago

I list my apartment on airbnb and my considerations aren't as divorced from those of my neighbours as you're making out. Most people care about where they live. I don't want my apartment trashed by people using it as a place to party for a couple of days just as much, if not more, than my neighbours don't. I've had dozens of people stay at my apartment through airbnb and they've all been respectful, fantastic guests. I always look through their profiles and reviews before letting them stay, it's a far cry from operating a brothel or crack den. I'd bet my neighbours know less about their cleaners than I do about my Airbnb guests before they arrive.

jtbigwoo3• 14 years ago

Despite the touching stories about financial ruin, the government has a legitimate interest in making sure B&B's are minimally safe and operate without disturbing neighbors. All of these "It's my property!" arguments are supremely disingenuous.

tptacek15• 14 years ago

Also, The Washington Monthly has here painted the most sympathetic possible picture of someone stung by hotel regulations.

But in NYC, there's some reason to believe that the intended target of those regs isn't homeowners trying to make an honest buck, but rather unscrupulous businesspeople abusing Airbnb to operate "off the books" hostels --- my many NYC friends and acquaintances have taken to calling these "mob hotels".

hell0_th3r38• 14 years ago

and in any case you are not even legally a owner

you are a TENANT.

before downvoting me, go and look at your deed. find the term "owner" anywhere on it.

yes folks, the county has permitted you to enter into an agreement to make improvements on the land and resell that right to others. the county "owns" the land. most first-time home buyers are surprised to find out that they actually are only considered tenants

sureshv3• 14 years ago

You still own the improvements (Home or other structures), if any on the land - hence homeowner...

larrys6• 14 years ago

"before downvoting me, go and look at your deed. find the term "owner" anywhere on it."

Ok, I happen to have a deed right in front of me for a property having forgotten to put it in the safe deposit box.

On the first page appears the following:

"1. Transfer of ownership. The grantor grants and conveys (transfers ownership of) the property (called the "Property") described below to the Grantee. This transfer is made for the sum of..."

"3. Property. The property consists of the land and all the buildings and structures on the in land in the city of ..."

Seems pretty clear to me that this contradicts what you are saying. I am located in a state on the east coast USA.

anamax2• 14 years ago

In some vacation places, such as Monterey, it's illegal to rent a house/apartment for less than a month without a hotel license.

These laws predate AirBnB by decades.

gav• 14 years ago

In some vacation spots the law is even tougher. Long Beach, NY is worried about people renting a house and having all their friends stay:

Not more than two (2) persons not related to each other by blood, adoption or marriage, living and cooking together in a single dwelling unit.

A lot of towns also expect you to get a rental permit too.

sureshv3• 14 years ago

Doesn't seem too difficult to get a 'free' license and pay the occupancy tax. I've stayed in various beach rentals along the California coast for 2 weeks at a time and have been charged occupancy tax.

http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/taxcollector/TOT.html

anamax2• 14 years ago

At that link, you'll see "Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection Department requires Homeowners wishing to pursue short term residential rentals (7-30 days) to obtain an Administrative Permit."

In other words, you can't just pay the tax.

On http://www.mcar.com/montereycounty.html, we find:

County of Monterey Non-Coastal: Administrative permit required for rentals less than 30 days in R-1 zoning district Minimum rental period 7 days Zoning Ordinance 21.64.280

Coastal: Contact: Planning and Building Inspection Department (831) 883-7500

I'd guess that the county is easier to deal with on this than the various cities (where the hotels and the bulk of the housing are).

tgrass10• 14 years ago

Short term Tourist Homes have a historical precedence in this country.

http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/historic-properties/_sea...

fra• 14 years ago

While I would be the last one to shed a tear for the hotel industry that's seeing it's too-old business model disrupted by airBnB and the likes, I feel like more regulation of the temporary hosting industry is needed.

What's to stop someone from acquiring a bunch of property in, say, Paris and put it all up on airBnB?

"What's the problem with that?" you ask? Well, this makes housing more expensive (you now have to compete with that industry), further gentrifies residential neighborhoods, and pushes the middle class further away from the desirable spots.

I haven't thought all of this through, but perhaps a rule requiring lodgers to live at least 1mo/year full time in the place for rent would be useful?

cciesquare• 14 years ago

For my friend's wedding, we stayed at such a place. I had a long conversation with the owner, who lived in a side room. It looked like an extension he built on the house.

He told me he was running into issues with the city. Not from hotels or what not, but complaints from neighbors. They did not like the fact that strangers were constantly going in and out. BUT he said that he had heard hotels and motels were not happy about the popularity, especially from other short-term vacation home owners.

It's going to be a two front battle, one side from big business, and the other from neighbors. In the end my guess is that the city will license it, and heavily tax it, in other words the cities win.

gcb4• 14 years ago

The point about neighbors is moot.

i hate all of mine. But the hotels have nothing against them. so i will have to live with them. that's life.

If you could choose neighbors... the world would be very empty because everyone would be living alone.

luismmontielg• 14 years ago

Im getting

OperationalError at /v1/complete/google-oauth2/ FATAL: too many connections for role "ruwdncbzdkulsh"

Request Method: GET Request URL: http://api.collections.me/v1/complete/google-oauth2/?code=4/... Django Version: 1.4 Exception Type: OperationalError Exception Value: FATAL: too many connections for role "ruwdncbzdkulsh"

Seems django debug is ON

DenisM• 14 years ago

I foresee a social-media thingamajig that lets you stay with friends [of friends]*, and the stayovers being arranged similar to how linkedin introductions work.

geebee4• 14 years ago

I remember an article about this problem in the nytimes a while back... here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/travel/escapes/07backlash....

There's a wide range of opinions on this topic, and a lot of it probably comes down to personality. I'm sympathetic to people who don't really want their neighborhood to become a revolving door of short term residents, even if those residents are respectful and quiet. Some people would happily give up the right to rent out their own property short term in exchange for a neighborhood with less turnover, where you get to meet, know, and become long term friends with the people around you.

Other people not only disagree, but are appalled, even angered, that anyone would presume to make this decision for someone else - if their tenants are quiet and respectful, what right does someone else have to regulate what they do with their own property?

This is the sort of issue that reminds me of an interesting branch of libertarianism that actually supports highly restrictive laws provided that these laws are kept very local and decentralized. For instance, religious communities would have the right to demand everyone wear certain clothes, as long as people can easily leave and they promise not to try to enforce their dress code on the next township over.

I see some value in that point of view here. I do think neighborhoods, on a very local level, should be allowed to enforce strict laws on vrbos and short term rentals. I wouldn't want to see these laws state-wide (or even city wide), but at the neighborhood level, I don't think I have any objection (and I would prefer to live in a neighborhood with these restrictions).

marcojgm• 14 years ago

I have rented out my place (which I own) numerous times. I pay my income taxes through the 1099 Airbnb issues. Since I've started renting, I've made numerous friends I keep in touch with, have had invitations to visit Turkey, Singapore... it has helped me pay my bills... and I've never had a disturbance, nor have my neighbors ever had a problem. I realize not all cases are like this, but Airbnb has truly made my life easier, made me a proud host and broadened my horizons. As a guest I have gotten under the skin of neighborhoods in a matter of days (one time I ate at 3 fancy restaurants in a weekend all of which had month long reservation lists because my host is embedded in the local community)

The beauty of Airbnb and other community marketplaces is that I'm incentivized to make sure things go well. If my neighbors complain, it will become hard to host. If my guests complain, it will become hard to host. If I complain at a hotel? No one cares.

I would happily pay a flat yearly tax to register as a short term rental host. I won't however spend 10s of hours working through ridiculous paperwork, spending thousands of $s to get onside of this antiquated system. We should be thankful of companies like Airbnb, like SideCar, Uber, TaskRabbit, Exec, pushing our outdated world forward.

Just my $.02

josephs• 14 years ago

As an Airbnb host I would add that there's more to renting out your home than just the money. You can really see how you're helping people travel or visit their family or company headquarters (we've had all of these and more). We can give them a great home, show them all the great stores, restaurants, cafes, and see the huge appreciation for this kind of experience. It's life in another city as people in that city live it. Also remember that here in San Francisco almost all of the hotels are downtown or around Union Square so we can bring people to all the other neighborhoods of the city. I've also been an Airbnb guest and it's amazing as well. It's wonderful to support local people and get great advice about where to go. The site has fundamentally changed the way I think about travel.

People have been renting out their homes to visitor for a long time but what Airbnb has done by creating a central marketplace is incredible. It feels as important as Amazon reinventing online purchases. Like many of the great internet companies Airbnb is ruffling a lot of feathers from intrenched businesses and changing the way people think about their private space. What other company has been so successful at fostering connections between people who have never met in the real world?

joebottherobot3• 14 years ago

I've been a host since I joined Airbnb as an engineer two years ago. During my interview I had an "AHA!" moment when I saw a letter pinned on the wall. It was from someone affected by the financial crisis who had been able to avoid foreclosure by renting their place on Airbnb. The letter expressed unending gratitude for how Airbnb had helped her through the most difficult time of her life. It completely changed how I thought about the company and ultimately led me to join.

Since then I've realized that the positive impact goes far deeper. For example, as a host I tell every guest about my favorite local establishments. Not only am I exposing my guests to true San Francisco flavor, I'm also helping local businesses that don't traditionally see tourism dollars.

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't hear about how we've helped someone, both travelers and hosts.

jquery• 14 years ago

Well, here's a counterpoint. A bunch of people in my building use AirBnB to rent out units. These transient tenants are often noisy, dirty, and in one recent case, outright frightening, threatening long-term tenants (security had to kick him out of the building). Hotels are zoned differently than residential units for good reasons, it's not just big business squeezing out the small fries.

That's not to say I don't have full respect for you as a company. Just want you to be aware there is a counterpoint, and that people using your service should be following local regulations and leases. When they don't, it creates headaches for neighbors and resentment towards your company.

eps2• 14 years ago

Here we go again... Who changed the post title? Two hours into the discussion.

pg, please do something about this. It is getting absolutely out of hand.

urza• 14 years ago

...the hotel industry took its cause to city officials, who, in turn, lobbied Democrats in the state legislature. In 2010 New York passed a law..

Wow this is just plain wrong. The laws were meant to be made for citizens not for any one industry. As was the case with SOPA, PIPA and other bills, the law making process in USA is clearly broken and needs to be changed. It is a problem you (Americans) need to fix.

gojomo3• 14 years ago

The original submitted headline was more representative of the article's content.

I used to understand headline corrections on HN, especially when they made changes away from blatantly abusive headlines. Now it seems they're done indiscriminately.

gcb4• 14 years ago

This reminds me when everyone was driving drunk, and there was already laws that made that illegal, but the limit was something like 3 glasses of beer.

instead of simply enforcing it, they changed the law to be zero limit AND enforced it.

this is the same idiocy.

trashing a place is already illegal. Disturbing the peace is already illegal. Reducing your neighbor property value is already illegal (our intern complains he keep getting citations for not cutting the grass ...a $300 fine)

Name ONE thing this law does that wasn't illegal before. ONE. I challenge you.

DIY B&B

Related Stories