S.F. cracks down on Airbnb rentals

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-cracks-down-on-Airbnb-rentals-5381237.php

by timr • 12 years ago

181 260 12 years ago

chollida1• 12 years ago

The money quote from the article:

"They thought it was OK to rent out on Airbnb because the company didn't tell them otherwise. Airbnb should be defending these tenants, or they should disclose to every person who rents in San Francisco that (short-term rentals are illegal) and tenants are being evicted."

This is interesting. If it is indeed illegal for any renter to use air bnb in San Francisco, then it seems logical to me that AirBnb should at the very least make the person renting out a place check a box that very clearly says

1) they own their own place

2) they have checked with their building, if its a condo or shared building, to ensure that its legal for them to rent out their place.

gpapilion2• 12 years ago

The tenant signed a lease, and should be aware of the clauses within it.

Usually leases forbid subletting w/o the landlords approval.

toufka3• 12 years ago

At least in this case, it appears to be a law that is being violated, rather than a clause in a lease. The clause in the lease that is getting people evicted states, "any illegal activity". So just reading your lease is insufficient to determine whether or not one could rent a room.

Further, from the article:

"San Francisco bans all residential rentals of less than 30 days unless the hosts have a conditional use permit - an expensive and cumbersome process that virtually everyone ignores. The ban applies whether the hosts own or rent, paying guests visit frequently or once a year, or hosts rent out a room or an entire dwelling."

So at least in SF - anyone using AirBNB at all is breaking the law, irrespective of one's lease or ownership status.

calbear81• 12 years ago

In this case, it's not really a sublease because the tenant was occupying the unit at the same time.

sp332• 12 years ago

Short-term rentals are illegal regardless of lease terms.

001sky2• 12 years ago

But if you profit off illegal activity and/or look the other-way... you have created a nexus with that activity...wilful negligence etc. How do you stay out of the legal crosshairs?

JohnTHaller3• 12 years ago

Airbnb is well aware that many of their hosts are renting illegally. In NYC, it's illegal to do a rental without the host there for under 30 days unless you have the proper licensing. So nearly all 'whole apt' rentals on airbnb are illegal. Airbnb makes no effort to let hosts know the laws regarding this.

BrainInAJar3• 12 years ago

Airbnb is well aware that many of their hosts are renting illegally

Their entire business model, in fact, depends on it. Welcome to the "sharing economy", that is, the economy of ignoring the laws regarding what it is you're trying to do

bradleyjg2• 12 years ago

I agree, Airbnb is a bad actor here, but by the same token so are the illegal landlords. I don't buy the framing that they are victims of Airbnb's willful attempt to keep them in the dark. They have just as much reason as Airbnb to know the law, just like Airbnb they decided to go into business for the purpose of making money and are responsible for doing so in a lawful manner.

The real victims here are the neighbors and in the case of subletters, the landlords. No one gets upset when the triggerman goes to jail, even if they also wish the Don would go too.

xcntktn2• 12 years ago

Well yeah, they've got a valuation to worry about. They are not going to let a little something like the law get in the way of that.

Avitas• 12 years ago

Not only are they "well aware," they have likely gone much further and internally documented items that they need to actively avoid talking about, reviewed code/ordinances/statutes for each state, county and locality that could expose them to direct or secondary liability, etc.

"Well aware"... understatement.

deloschang• 12 years ago

"then it seems logical to me that AirBnb should at the very least make the person renting out a place check a box..."

As far as AirBnB is concerned, they provide a big chunk of their value serving as a "marketplace", not necessarily for <30 days sublets. Reputation management, escrow etc. Note you can enter in arbitrary check-in and check-out dates and they have a "/sublets" section as well.

Wiser for them to focus on this value proposition than try to navigate the red tape and ensure legality across the globe.

frandroid3• 12 years ago

Ensuring hosts know that they risk being evicted for renting out their homes should be part of the value they provide.

bdcravens• 12 years ago

Even if you own the place, are there issues with the bank who holds the mortgage (about 2/3 of all homes have mortgages) or the insurance company?

aidenn02• 12 years ago

There is essentially never an issue with the insurance company unless you make a claim. The insurance company is happy to take your money regardless of how well or poorly you follow their terms, and will just deny a claim if there is evidence of any violation of the terms.

klochner• 12 years ago

It's illegal in SF even if you own your own place:

San Francisco bans all residential rentals of less than 30 days unless the hosts have a conditional use permit - an expensive and cumbersome process that virtually everyone ignores. The ban applies whether the hosts own or rent, paying guests visit frequently or once a year, or hosts rent out a room or an entire dwelling.

... though I'm not sure what the penalty is in that case, as you're not going to get evicted from your own home.

neltnerb• 12 years ago

If you own your own home, code violations usually result in getting an abatement requiring you to cease that activity, pay fines, or otherwise come into compliance with the law. There are a variety of enforcement mechanisms that can be used ranging from fines to condemning the building depending on how they structured the law.

yeukhon• 12 years ago

I am confused. This makes Airbnb's business in S.F. (in addition to Airbnb HQ is in SF) and many major cities an oxymoron.

seivan• 12 years ago

Same thing in Sweden.

eqdw3• 12 years ago

They post a warning that you as a host are responsible for making sure you're following all your local laws.

Of course they're skirting the grey area of the law to make a profit. At the same time, every single host who affirms that they're following the laws, when they are not, are at fault.

If you get into the landlord business without bothering to check on local regulations, why should it be AirBnB's fault. Craigslist doesn't make you check a big box that says "renting this out short term is illegal", why should AirBnB?

scelerat4• 12 years ago

Particularly painful is the fact that losing one's apartment in San Francisco is also effectively a banishment from the city.

If you're like many people currently living in SF, you can't afford to rent an apartment at current market rates. You don't merely have to find a new apartment; you have to move to a different city. And guess what? If you worked in the city before, your commute costs likely just went up $100-$200 a month.

AirBnB absolutely should be bearing some responsibility here if they have been knowingly withholding information about the legality of subletting in San Francisco. Their risk very low, while the consequences for an unwitting AirBnB host are potentially life-altering in a very real way.

bradleyjg2• 12 years ago

Come on -- you have a rent control apartment well under market value and no inkling that you might be limited in how you can directly profit from that circumstance? No thought that hey maybe I should check with my landlord, or at least give it a google?

Houshalter3• 12 years ago

If only there was a way to more efficiently allocate housing to people that need it. Oh wait.

bsder5• 12 years ago

AirBnB absolutely should be bearing some responsibility here if they have been knowingly withholding information about the legality of subletting in San Francisco.

Um, AirBnB is effectively illegal everywhere. The number of places it is legal dwarfs the number of places it is illegal.

Of course, if AirBnB decided to operate in places like Vandergrift, PA, people would welcome them (renting a hotel there is normally easy, but becomes a nightmare at times like high-school graduation because of almost no supply) as a way to cushion event-based scarcity.

Like Uber, these companies don't want to operate in the suburbs where people would welcome and defend them. They want to operate in the cities, show hypergrowth, and cash out for billions.

No sympathy for all parties.

jophde• 12 years ago

San Franciscan crony capitalism at it's finest.

balls187• 12 years ago

In Seattle, there was a HUGE stink after the City Council passed a law regulating services like Uber & Lyft. Given that we (Seattle) are always compared to the Bay Area in terms of innovation (and the stifling thereof), it's nice to see that at least our two city governments are aligned in their ineptitude.

steve-howard• 12 years ago

"Regulating" in the same way that choking someone is "regulating" their air. Still, even though I really liked UberX's service, they deliberately set out to ignore the law and then cried foul when the city started putting some teeth to it.

numlocked• 12 years ago

Many of the comments on sfgate refer to the moral ambiguity of profiting off of a rent-controlled property -- definitely an interesting wrinkle.

optimusclimb3• 12 years ago

I don't see any ambiguity there. Airbnb is just one such abuse.

In talking to people, I've heard countless examples of "master tenants" charging incoming roommates much higher rent than an "even split" on the rent. In one extreme, a tenant in a 3 bedroom was living 100% rent free while the other two tenants covered the entire costs - until they learned of this and moved out on principle. Tenants moving in as roommates on rent controlled apartments are apparently even offering cash bribes exceeding $1k for the privilege of obtaining a spot.

Quite the broken system, imho.

tpurves• 12 years ago

Rent control is a broken system. You have cases of someone with a long rent controlled $1500 rent on a 3bdr that would go for 3k or 4k market rates. If they listed a bedroom at $500 on CL they would get ten thousand of applicants.

refurb• 12 years ago

Not splitting rent based on square footage is actually illegal in SF. If your roommates find out, they just have to go to the Tenant's board and complain and whoever benefited will be required to pay the difference back.

smsm4211• 12 years ago

Of course the solution for rent-seeking (a bit of a pun here, sorry) behavior produced by regulation is always more regulation. And when that produces unintended consequences, we always can have more regulation to fix that regulation, and ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

mikeash3• 12 years ago

Is somebody proposing more regulation? I don't see it if so. Everybody seems to be merely proposing that people follow the regulations already in place.

Estragon• 12 years ago

Is there any risk of legal action from being an airbnb guest in SF?

ryanmcbride• 12 years ago

Probably not since you aren't the one profiting, but if you know that it's illegal for the host, you probably shouldn't do it just to avoid being a jerk.

stbtrax• 12 years ago

As an SF renter, this makes me happy. I have met too many people personally that have an extra bed room(or even keep their lease and moved to a lower-rent city) that they rent out to subsidize their rent. This reduces stock for actual renters and drives prices up.

jmzbond• 12 years ago

I only partially agree with your comment. I wish there were a way to distinguish between people truly profiting off rent-controlled property (as @numlocked said) and sometimes not even living here, and those just trying to get a little extra cash to make ends meet.

If you think about a year's worth of rental cost, no matter how much you rent out your apartment for in those short term bursts, you're probably never going to even get close to breaking even. And especially if you're one of those people not in a booming industry, it can really help when you're out of town for a weekend or so to try and defray the cost of living. Because while rent is controlled, nothing else in this city is.

optimusclimb3• 12 years ago

Not so sure about your second point - If a person has a place that has been rent controlled for 5+ years, this is quite doable.

Additionally, how is renting out a "rent controlled" place at market rates not transferring income from the actual landlord, to the lessee, while defeating the "control" at the same time?

pmorici2• 12 years ago

How does forcing someone to leave an extra bedroom empty drive up prices?

dewey• 12 years ago

Supply and demand.

jrockway2• 12 years ago

Lowers the effective rent for the apartment.

Let's say everyone in San Francisco rents out their apartment for $200 once a month. Now landlords can raise the rent by $200, since people could afford the rent before, but are now making an extra $200 a month. Meanwhile, you, the person that doesn't illegally rent out their apartment, has to compete for apartments with people that can pay more because they break the law.

That's where the angst is coming from.

bri3d• 12 years ago

Short-term tenants generally pay substantially more on a per night basis than real roommates (long-term tenants). Forcing only long-term tenants would thus presumably cause rents to move towards what the long-term tenant market can handle rather than the aggregate nightly rate achievable by accommodating lots of short-term tenants.

Naturally the reality is vastly more complicated but I believe that's the basic reasoning behind the "short term rentals drive prices up" line of thought.

mikeash3• 12 years ago

Short term occupancy doesn't have a very good load factor. Perhaps 50% of the time, that bedroom is going to be empty even when it's being actively rented out short term.

Whereas if the person can't profit from it and doesn't need it, they may simply downsize, allowing another renter who does need it to move into the unit and use all the bedrooms, giving a much higher load factor.

Not saying it's necessarily a good idea, but banning short term rentals can help increase the utilization, and thus the availability, of existing housing resources.

dguaraglia• 12 years ago

On the other hand, that allows some people to live in the city when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it. The SF rental situation is not created by the few people that profit from temporarily renting to tourists.

lectrick3• 12 years ago

Why don't we just fucking let capitalism run where it may, instead of having all these stupid complicated controls which end up being exploited for profit anyway?

Nursie• 12 years ago

Because unfettered capitalism makes life miserable for a lot of people as externalised costs are not accounted for.

joshuahedlund• 12 years ago

Doesn't this also reduce the demand for renting by all the people who are renting those extra bedrooms? If all those extra bedrooms stopped being rented out, why wouldn't this increase the demand for renting elsewhere and thus drive the price up?

malandrew12• 12 years ago

Your anger is misplaced. The root cause of housing stock is not how people are using the current stock but the complete refusal to amend the situation to build more housing stock. Many landlords (living in their property or renting out) actively oppose rezoning changes that would permit more housing in the city. Those renting out are very much in favor of current zoning because they earn far more money from units because of limited stock.

Furthermore, a lot of those I know who have an extra room and rent out on AirBnB are usually renting out to people actively trying to move to the city and need a place to stay (1-3 months) until they find a unit to live in. For those AirBnB hosts that keep a lease, almost all of them that I know are renting out on AirBnB for more than 30 days at a time (usually to people trying to move to the city), because its not convenient or cost effective to manage back to back short-term stays when you aren't living in the unit. At the end of the day, those subleasing are usually just absorbing the difference between the rent control they secured originally and market value, which would be absorbed by the landlord anyways the moment the lease was given up. i.e. If Bob rents a rent controlled unit from Alice at $1000 a month and then decides to sublet it at $1500 a month 2 years later to Carol, then Bob is making $500 dollars profit. However if Bob gave up the lease, Alice would rent it out again at $1500 to Carol anyways. Either way, Carol ends up paying $1500 a month.

brianwawok• 12 years ago

A startup built on an illegal business model in it's most popular markets... sounds like a 20 billion dollar exit.

paulbaumgart• 12 years ago

Enabling a large number of people to more easily do slightly illegal things can be viewed as an opening offer in a negotiation. If the scale is large enough that enforcing existing laws is unrealistic, what often happens is that lawmakers and offenders eventually meet somewhere in the middle.

GFK_of_xmaspast2• 12 years ago

Why would it be too large to enforce? The drug war certainly isn't.

TillE• 12 years ago

Unlikely in this case. Berlin for example is going in very much the opposite direction, passing new laws to crack down on short-term rentals, freeing up more properties in the city centre for actual residents.

baddox2• 12 years ago

Sounds like a decent way to eventually get ridiculous laws changed.

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

I wonder what the rights of a short term renter is in SF. Lets say 30 days or some other small fixed time that is legal. Can you practically stop paying rent and live there for the years it takes to get you evicted? Would they have to pay you the $~40k relocation payments to get you out eventually?

dragonwriter2• 12 years ago

I wonder what the rights of a short term renter is in SF. Lets say 30 days or some other small fixed time that is legal.

Except for properly licensed hotels, short-term rentals are illegal in SF.

mahyarm3• 12 years ago

The article says over 30 day rentals are legal. It's under 30 day rentals without a permit that are illegal. But I'm wondering if there is a difference in treatment vs a person who has been there for a year or more.

noobiemcfoob3• 12 years ago

While breaking the law is generally a bad idea and generally one should be punished for it, I was disappointed that both the article and comments on the article didn't delve into whether it is a 'good and fair' law in the first place.

I understand the ambiguity of a tenant virtually subleasing a property, which is a clause normally either allowed or not allowed in a tenant's lease, but the blanket ban of renting a room for a short number of days seems like a law that hotel lobbyists worked hard to get in place.

rayiner2• 12 years ago

That's a kind of ad-hominem attack on a law. Just because the hotel lobbyists might favor it doesn't mean it's not a good or fair law. The fact of the matter is that these sorts of provisions are supported not just by hotel lobbyists,[1] but property owners generally. Short-term renters reduce property value in neighborhoods, and property owners love measures to ban such rentals.

[1] Invoking the specter of "hotel lobbyists" is intensely amusing to me. If hotels had such good lobbyists, cities wouldn't have almost universally exorbitant (over 14% in NYC) hospitality taxes, which quite negatively affect the hotel industry.

sillysaurus32• 12 years ago

What's an example of any law that's currently in place which you feel is unjust or unfair?

mathattack3• 12 years ago

This isn't black and white.

Many landlords struggle because their tenants are paying below market rents. This is a particular problem in San Francisco, but also in other cities like NY.

On the one hand, you can say, "Joe taxi driver can barely afford rent, what's wrong with him leasing out his room when he's out of town?"

Then look at it from the landlord's point of view. They say, "I can't get a free market rent, because the law says that I can't evict Joe Taxi Driver. So I have to settle for less money, then he goes and rents the room out without paying me a dime."

Then look at Jane NewToTown. Jane says, "I would like to pay market rate for Joe's place. I can't, but if I want to stay for a few nights I can pay the renter who gets below market rates, rather than the landlord."

AirBnB isn't the cause of the problem - it exists because there is a problem that it being arbed.

sliverstorm5• 12 years ago

I think what we are saying, essentially, is that Joe Taxi Driver is leveraging the fact that he cannot be evicted to engage in aggressive rent-seeking behavior.

malandrew12• 12 years ago

I call bs here, if landlords are struggling then they should get out of the business of being a landlord in a market with regulations that don't support their business model. There are more than enough people willing to buy a unit to move into it themselves. I'm 100% anti rent control myself, but to claim landlords are struggling is disingenuous.

There is no rule out there that says that landlords have a right to their business model on their terms. I'm aware of several units in this city where the landlord grew up in a unit their parents purchased way back in the day, who then moved out of the city to the suburbs. They now profit handsomely because they self select for tenants that are likely to move out of the city or outgrow a unit.

tomhschmidt• 12 years ago

What's the rationale behind having laws like these in place? Is it protectionism for the hotel industry, or is it more intended to protect apartment renters from unintended liability issues?

protomyth5• 12 years ago

Its about liability and protection of the other people in the building. This type of law has a long history and a lot of things can go very wrong. This is a totally different story from Uber and the taxi industry.

pisarzp2• 12 years ago

Why liability would change? Main tenant is on the contract, and she should be liable for any issues arising due to airbnb rental.

hatu2• 12 years ago

I can understand not being pumped about having random people come and go if your neighbor is leasing out their place on a site like this regularly. As a traveler I like the service though.

tptacek9• 12 years ago

I'm not sure it's all that different from Uber and the taxi industry:

* The medallion system gives owners something significant to lose it they become scofflaws, and while we all have horror stories about cab drivers, anyone who's traveled to Asia (or, for that matter, Italy) knows that we have relatively well-behaved drivers, even in the cohorts selected for worst incentives.

* The taxi companies are required to comply with rules that make taxis part of the fabric of transportation for the whole city (for instance, they're usually required to serve every destination within the city). Uber does not need to comply with these rules, and thus threatens not just cab companies but the transportation system as a whole.

malandrew12• 12 years ago

Why does it need to be a criminal issue though instead of merely a civil contract law issue?

I would imagine that each landlord and each homeowner's association could come to their own agreements on what is and is not acceptable without the need for laws on the books.

mjgoins• 12 years ago

One positive side effect of regulation is that overt racial discrimination is illegal.

Black and Jewish folks used to have a hell of a time getting a hotel room in the US at various points in history. That became illegal with the 1960s civil rights laws, but recent media coverage suggests discrimination is rampant on Airbnb.

It also used to be nearly impossible to find wheelchair-accessible hotels.

I have no idea what the solution is here, but there are good things about regulation of these kinds of businesses.

uptown• 12 years ago

I'm sure there are some protectionist elements to it, but it also prevents people from taking zoning-laws into their own hands. If an area is zoned as a residential zone, it shouldn't be turned into a commercial (i.e. hotel) zone because a bunch of people decide to turn their properties into nightly-rentals. If somebody decides their apartment would make a great night-club, they can't just make it a nightclub because they own their apartment. Zoning laws are designed to create a symbiotic relationship throughout a community, and AirBNB does very little to discourage its users from ignoring those laws.

pdq• 12 years ago

It is protectionism for hotels. However, HOAs and City Councils will make the claims that this is to "protect" apartment owners from unknowing short-term sub-renting of their properties.

We have the same problem here in Austin, except it is Taxis being protected against private drivers like Uber and Lyft. They claim this is to protect citizens from unlicensed drivers.

geebee4• 12 years ago

There is also concern about the large scale conversion of long term residential and single family housing stock into short-term vacation rentals in a severely supply constrained region.

crassus• 12 years ago

This is rich coming from a city with more dingy rent-by-hour flophouses than any other I've ever seen

sentientmachine2• 12 years ago

Some people own their own home and still can't use Airbnb because their HOA (Home Owner Association) made a rule that you can't sublet your house. And if you are found in abayence of this rule, they can fine you any amount they want per day, and then if you still don't comply, they can sell your house and kick you out of it.

So people who have houses with an HOA, they don't technically own their house, they are just borrowing it from the HOA while paying the taxes, insurance, and doing all the work for them to keep the house up.

aidenn02• 12 years ago

IANAL, but my understanding is that HOAs in California can't put a lien on your property for failing to pay fines, only for failing to pay dues.

Furthermore overly punitive fines aren't allowed, and that rule does in fact have teeth (and is also abused by homeowners to make it more expensive to collect fines from them).

That means if you pay your dues, but not your fine, the only option the HOA has to collect is to sue you. Once you pass the maximum for small-claims, that starts to get really expensive.

Lastly, each homeowner has a common-interest in the HOA, including an equal vote in board-members. For large HOAs, that becomes fairly moot, but for smaller ones, it makes a difference.

Now HOAs aren't all sunshine and roses (I prefer to not live in one, primarily since common-interest property tends to be run quite inefficiently), but it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

mikeho19992• 12 years ago

Yes, you are correct, on pretty much all of your points.

IANAL, but my understanding is that HOAs in California can't put a lien on your property for failing to pay fines, only for failing to pay dues.

Yes, however, most HOAs do have ways to make it difficult for homeowners who have become delinquent on fines. One common approach is that the CC&Rs allow a delinquent homeowner to be placed as "a member NOT in good standing", which means that the owner will be precluded from using the association amenities (pool, clubhouse, tennis court, etc.) or even being able to vote for board members, until the fine is paid off and the "good standing" is restored.

Furthermore overly punitive fines aren't allowed, and that rule does in fact have teeth (and is also abused by homeowners to make it more expensive to collect fines from them).

Not only that, but the Davis-Sterling Act (which is the California state laws that govern common interest developments) as well as most of the local courts in California are very much sided towards the homeowner and against the overall community. Much of the Davis-Sterling Act was written and approved at a time when there was a lot of concern that large community developments would do things to abuse and harm the individual homeowner, or more specifically, that the will of the majority (within a CID) would do things to make life as difficult as possible for those in the minority. Davis-Sterling (and the many of subsequent court cases that dealt with Davis-Sterling) was basically set up to help prevent that as much as possible, unfortunately sometimes to the detriment of well-meaning HOA Boards that are dealing with a delinquent homeowner that understands these loopholes and uses them to willingly violate rules, or skirt out of paying fines, etc.

mikeho19992• 12 years ago

"they are just borrowing it from the HOA while paying the taxes, insurance, and doing all the work for them to keep the house up."

I'm not sure if this sentence was meant to be snarky or if this was a genuine comment... if it's the former, then heheh, I will agree that the sentiment of the sentence does have some merit.

But if it's the latter, I just wanted to try and clear something up -- speaking as an owner of a condo (in an HOA) and as the former president of our HOA.

Typically, owners of homes within an HOA are classified as owners in a "common interest development", where owners are all equal share holders of the development as a whole. Meaning, if there are 100 homeowners in a condo community, each homeowner owns an equal share (1%) of that overall community's property.

The owner is not "borrowing" anything from the HOA... especially since the HOA, itself, doesn't actually own anything at all.

The HOA is technically a corporation (yes, all HOAs are incorporated as a corporation, at least in the State of California) which has been chartered to manage and maintain the common interest development property, while maintaining things like the reserve fund, enforcement of the CC&Rs, architectural reviews, etc.

SO as a homeowner in the common interest, you actually own the HOA (and not the other way around).

Furthermore, homeowners within an HOA are granted limited, exclusive use of a certain part of the overall property... in most cases, that is the space inside condo or townhouse unit itself, and maybe a patio or yard, etc.

What's key is the limited part of "limited, exclusive use", as well as what is noted in the CC&Rs, itself, which describes the definition of what is "limited". Yes, these limitations can very well (and usually do) include provisions on what can or cannot be rented out, how long guests can stay within your home, etc. Typically, these provisions are not meant to make life difficult, but these provisions are in place to help maintain the overall property value of the all the homes in the community.

But the most important thing to note is that the CC&Rs are, in fact determined by all of the homeowners, and not by some arbitrary "HOA" or "powers that be", etc. CC&Rs are (or should be) regularly reviewed by the board members of the HOA, and changes are required to be approved by a certain majority (or supermajority) of homeowners by anonymous vote (again, at least this is how it is in the State of California, as dictated by the Davis-Sterling Act).

Bottom line: if you are a homeowner in a condo or townhouse community and feel like you have no freedom to do with the home that you rightfully own, just remember that you actually just own a portion of a much larger community/property, and thus, you are bound by some of the limitations / restrictions that the overall community has placed on each owner. But moreover, if you feel that some of those limitations / restrictions are unjust, unfair, or outdated, then work with the HOA Board (or better yet, actually be on the HOA board) and work with your neighbors to get those rules and regulations changed.

sentientmachine2• 12 years ago

Ownership means a few things, it's the right to use, and the right to deny use of, and if someone opposes you on your rightful usage or denial, then the unlimited fury of a thousand policemen are available to correct the other person.

You said the HOA doesn't own anything, actually they do "literally own" a portion of the thing that people pay for when buying a house. The right to deny use of your property for subletting (like airbnb). And if you don't comply, the policemen hit you with sticks until you do.

You said the HOA doesn't own anything, they own you, the human unit living in the home via dues. They also own a guarantee of income to whatever human unit lives in that house, that is a higher quality item to own than having ownership of say a cat or car. and the fact that your home serves as security for whatever liabilities the HOA corp board chooses to incur, HOA-burdened property represents a liability rather than an asset. It's a secondary level of government that resembles a banana republic.

There is also a continuing misperception that HOA corporations are miniature democracies. They are not. They have none of the protections for individual rights. So what if 50% of the neighbors don't like something. Majority rule might be fine for setting pool hours for the HOA corp's pool, but majority rule is not a democracy and it is not appropriate for what happens between the bedroom walls of "your" or more specifically "their" home.

The disputes that develop over the propriety and interpretation of restrictions is another cesspool. If there were no HOA corp, the disputes would tend to simply be differences of opinion. Natural barriers to litigation include the cost of litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome. However, the board members of an HOA corp bear no personal responsibility for financing litigation and are driven as much to harm fellow residents as they are to win. If they can cost a homeowner $20,000 and up, then their egos are satiated even if their HOA corp loses. The management companies profit from accusations of violations. The HOA attorney is likewise more concerned about provoking and maintaining the dispute for profit.

Which is why HOA's lower property values significantly by lowering the pool of available buyers.

willemm• 12 years ago

I'd be interested to find out where this push of evictions is coming from. They mentioned a surge of complaints from neighbors of renters, but I think it's more likely to be the hotel industry pushing back, or perhaps the city making a point about evading hotel taxes.

pisarzp2• 12 years ago

Or just landlord who is looking for a reason to evict someone and get market rate for the flat.

cdelsolar• 12 years ago

Bingo.

jrockway2• 12 years ago

I read to about here:

"Using an apartment for short-term rentals is a crime in San Francisco," said Edward Singer, an attorney with Zacks & Freedman who filed the notice against Katz.

Considering private attorneys don't prosecute crimes, this sounds like a landlord that wanted to raise the rent and found a good excuse to evict the current tenant.

protomyth5• 12 years ago

So, in this climate of protests and such, I wonder which news outlet will go with the "just trying to make ends meet due to the high cost of housing due to all the techies, a couple used Airbnb (one of those techie startups) and got evicted. now their apartment has been rented by a tech startup employee and they are homeless" angle. It seems like the perfect storm type story.

eqdw3• 12 years ago

These kinds of airbnb-based eviction articles make me laugh. The overwhelming media narrative here is "all evictions are bad, look at this rich uncaring landlord forcing this poor hardworking american into homelessness". But the other narrative is "tech companies are evil". So what happens when an evil tech company (or, by extension, someone using one like AirBnB) gets evicted? Are we supposed to hate the landlord for evicting, or love the landlord for fighting the man.

The articles I read on these subjects always feel schizophrenic

gtirloni4• 12 years ago

Airbnb doesn't have to know about laws in every places, but if it knows about such laws (and that they're being actively enforced) in SF and NYC, why allow people to announce or rent places there in the first place?

There are plenty of services (online streaming) that will tell you "sorry, our service is not available in your country/city/etc".

The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics. It's all good they want to change the law but while they haven't had success in the area, is it worth the bad press and headaches for renters?

sliverstorm5• 12 years ago

why allow people to announce or rent places there in the first place?

Because they get a cut?

gtirloni4• 12 years ago

That's true. So perhaps that cut is high enough to make the rest worth it. I'm taking Airbnb out of my hip&cool list of companies :)

eqdw3• 12 years ago

The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics.

Don't ascribe ethics to a company. Companies are not people. Companies don't care about ethics. They care about legal responsibility.

gtirloni4• 12 years ago

Companies are made of people. (Some) people care about ethics. (Somes) companies care about ethics.

For a company that is based on trust (https://www.airbnb.com/trust) I expect more from them than the lowly behavior we're used to see from other well known corporations that don't care.

winstonx2• 12 years ago

The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics.

Laws and ethics are not the same thing. In fact, it is often ethical to break a law.

gtirloni4• 12 years ago

That's obvious and well known. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "their ethics towards their customers". Better now? I'm not discussing any of the laws involved.

goodcanadian3• 12 years ago

I have lived in 6 different jurisdictions in three countries. None of them allowed short term rentals (<30 days) without appropriate zoning, license, et cetera. This is not about differing laws in differing locales. This is about ignoring widely applicable law . . . granted law that is widely ignored with little consequence. AirBnB would not have a business if they made a good faith effort to comply with the law.

jseliger• 12 years ago

This is about ignoring widely applicable law

It seems that technology and culture have moved faster than law (shocking, I know) and that laws that might have been a good idea in one set of circumstances aren't anymore.

jonknee2• 12 years ago

Their business model is illegal almost everywhere people would want to stay. It's not an ethical company. They're betting on their disruptive quality to overcome the ethics.

rch• 12 years ago

One problem in Boulder is that various entities (people, speculators, etc.) can be more aggressive about investing in affordable property, especially condos and smaller houses. Which they then operate as distributed, high-margin hotels. I don't think this is what Airbnb had in mind anyway, and it's obviously going to cause friction as the range in property costs collapses up into the high end (which is holding relatively constant).

Boulder is a tough market by design, but anything with this sort of impact is going to be closely scrutinized and evaluated for long term effects on the community.

mailplane212• 12 years ago

I just came back from SF having used Airbnb (studio apartment under the house) for the duration of my stay. I looked at hotels and hostels, however the night rate of a hotel was simply too expensive and I hate staying in hostels. Airbnb was a cheaper alternative that meant I could actually afford to stay in SF, while there I used the trams, bought coffees in local coffee shops (not Starbucks), ate in restaurants and visited the Exploratorium, all of which I assume SF gets a slice of through taxes.

My hosts own their property and as a result I think they should be able to rent it out on a short term basis if they want to, they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though. I think the law should be looked at if for those who own their property. Villas in Europe are rented out legally all the time and it drives lots of tourism and provides accommodation at much better rates than hotels etc.

If the host rents, then their land lord should be able to evict them if they sublet and they're not allowed to - they agreed to the contract and they should stick to it.

driverdan3• 12 years ago

they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though

SF and CA already charge plenty of taxes. There's no need for any extra.

kansface• 12 years ago

Airbnb residents are often a nightmare for other tenants in the same building- they often function as de facto customer support and are forced to put up with the extra noise. Beyond the legality, this business model is plagued by extremes.

malandrew12• 12 years ago

What's your basis for claiming this is an often occurrence? I have no doubt that there are nightmare airbnb hosts, but often is hardly warranted. I've lived as a roommate in a unit where the master tenant rents out on airbnb and in the dozens of interactions, I can think of at most one case where the person what an inconvenience to me and I can think of no cases where the person was an inconvenience to our neighbors.

geebee4• 12 years ago

It sounds like you had a good experience, and this would be a good argument to make to people if you're hoping to get the law changed.

The resistance to this tends to come from people who are concerned about the long term housing stock. It is most profitable to build a studio in your garage and rent it out on airbnb, it is somewhat less profitable to rent it out to a long term tenant, and it's far, far less profitable to build an extra bedroom for a growing family, cause small children don't pay rent and cost you a bundle in child care costs.

Allowing this sort of use would mean that in a bidding war (which is how all property in SF is sold), the people who plan to airbnb part of their house out will hold a huge advantage over someone who is looking for expansion potential for kids. So my take on it is, maybe we should zone some of the SF for single family use. Which, here in SF, we've actually already done.

That's the argument I'd make against allowing unlimited short term rentals in every single corner of SF. I would like to trade my right to engage in short term rentals in exchange for legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either, because I'd much rather have friends for my kids nearby than a neighborhood of short term vacationers.

We can disagree and resolve it at the ballot box, and I understand the problems with 50%+1 legislation. Some people won't like the outcome. So I guess I'd ask if you feel this sort of zoning in some parts of San Francisco (single family housing, no short term rentals) is so unjust that it is an unreasonable law that should (or must) be disregarded?

Jd2• 12 years ago

The first time I used AirBnB in SF, the renter invited me to use all the facilities of his apartment complex, including as much free coffee as I wanted, the gym, swimming pool, etc.

This struck me as not particularly sustainable. It also struck me as morally questionable. It was only a matter of time before the chickens eventually came home to roost...

malandrew12• 12 years ago

If that tenant had had a roommate, would that roommate not be consuming the same facilities? If so, would that be morally questionable?

At the end of the day, that tenant is probably paying homeowner's due proportional to the square footage of their unit. e.g. someone with 2 rooms is likely paying twice as much in dues as someone with 1 room.

I know that when I rented the penthouse unit in an apartment building with my father, we were paying almost 2x as much in building dues as the other units in the building, since we has 2x the space. Our roommates used the same facilities we did.

Jd2• 12 years ago

The tenant in question had converted his living room and kitchen into multiple additional "bedrooms" so that he could handle more capacity via AirBnB

In some cases the distinction may be subtle; in this case, not really.

shittyanalogy3• 12 years ago

Good.

Before Airbnb, when craigslist was the go to for short term rentals, they were not only cheaper but didn't come along with the stigma of ruining the neighborhood or being treated like a customer instead of a guest. There was much more of a mutual respect and even a feeling of gratitude on both sides. Now with Airbnb the whole things wreaks of an (illegal) business transaction with a flimsy guarantee, neighbors who want to catch you, no such gratitude to speak of and the costs have doubled.

The whole thing is obnoxious.

Tossrock• 12 years ago

(just FYI, you wreak havoc if you cause lots of damage, but rotten fish reeks)

driverdan3• 12 years ago

Higher prices make a lot of sense. Airbnb provides a level of vetting and feedback that adds a lot of value and security to both sides. It's easy to scam someone on craigslist when there's no reputation system.

shittyanalogy3• 12 years ago

No it doesn't, I've been scammed as a renter on Airbnb and people have been scammed as hosts. The increased cost comes from the market transition from "let's help eachother while we're both on vacation" to "Come stay at my apartment while I stay at my friends place and make half my rent from you over the weekend."

surana90• 12 years ago

Something similar happened in Singapore too last year.

hatu2• 12 years ago

Somehow I'm not surprised.

jqm4• 12 years ago

I never understood the Airbnb business model.

Sure, some regulations seem designed primarily to protect existing interests, but more often, there are very good reasons for the regulation.

For instance, I believe hotels must maintain a record of visitors car license plates. And they are often inspected by health departments.

I'm all for innovation, but I don't think we can throw out an entire regulatory framework that took decades to develop. There is just too much that can go wrong.

As for 10 or 20 billion dollar valuation for Airbnb? Reality says "Ridiculous!".

tptacek9• 12 years ago

A 10+ figure valuation for something that extracts 80% of the value of a hotel chain while sustaining 1% of its costs and at the same time handsomely remunerating the vendors that provide its inventory does not sound at all crazy to me.

jqm4• 12 years ago

Boy I would sure hate to see what crazy sounds like to you then:)

toomuchtodo6• 12 years ago

My assumption is that the valuation is "crazy" because vendors in some of the most desired markets are violating the law to provide their service.

"get while the gettin's good" sort of thing.

milesskorpen2• 12 years ago

Not sure how it extracts 80% of the value of a hotel chain — from what I've seen, estimates place the average AirBNB night at ~$80, which would mean AirBnB gets ~$10/stay.

I don't think I've ever seen a hotel night, outside of a hostel, for $12.

(And I'm not trying to say it is a bad business at all — non-customer-acqusition costs probably go down by a larger % than revenue.)

varelse3• 12 years ago

Assuming they live in a unit subject to The Ellis Act, SF renters benefit from ludicrous amounts of rent control that cause unending headaches for small-scale landlords. No sympathy for the renters in question here whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act

I have personally run into a guy who was subletting his unit out for twice his monthly rent. This is completely illegal and with good reason. The Ellis Act was not put in place to help renters make a little extra cash but rather to protect them from sudden rent increases.

I don't agree with The Ellis Act, in fact I wish it would die because while I think it was well-intended, it has too many unforeseen negative consequences and effects. And before you dismiss me as some teabagger conservative, here's Paul Krugman on the subject of rent control:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-...

And AirBnB should know better. No sympathy for them either.

driverdan3• 12 years ago

Good to see Krugman actually got something right, even if it was back in 2000. SF has many ridiculous laws pertaining to real estate and rentals. If they got rid of rent control and eased their building restrictions they'd have more housing and more affordable housing.

dclowd9901• 12 years ago

They would certainly have more housing, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be any more affordable. There is simply more people who want to live there than it could possibly support, even now. Hell, I'm a developer and I can't even afford to live there.

SilasX• 12 years ago

Wait until rent control becomes as politically popular as the minimum wage. Or when academics start scouring for positive effects of RC as hard as they do for the MW (and get the inevitable validating study).

Then, he will almost certainly come out in favor.

mmanfrin• 12 years ago

    Good to see Krugman actually got something right

Implying that he (nobel laureate) is usually incorrect in his assessments?

anigbrowl• 12 years ago

Actually, they wouldn't - but I'm going to preface my comment with Krugman's observation that 'So now you know why economists are useless: when they actually do understand something, people don't want to hear about it.' Also, the argument below doesn't mean I'm endorsing the status quo in SF city politics.

The problems are twofold: geography, and the fact that SF doesn't operate in a vacuum. Geographically, there's water on 3 sides and hills on the 4th. No matter what you do SF is always going to engaged in an uphill fight against density because it's almost as much of an island as Manhattan is. The vacuum is the bigger problem. Even if the mayor and board of supervisors agreed to abolish the planning commission tomorrow and hand out permits to any proposal compliant with building safety codes, it would not do much to accelerate building.

Why? Because neighbors would sue under CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. This allows virtually anyone to file a suit alleging that a negative impact on the environment or an insufficiency in the preparation of an environmental impact report, anywhere in CA. This is not just 'the environment' in terms of wild salmon or old-growth forest, though - it includes everything from air quality to aesthetics. I'm expecting to be invited to join a suit on this because I live close to a hospital which is planning a large expansion, and the neighbors a few blocks away are furious about the likely change in traffic patterns and noise during the construction phase, which will last a few years. I don't actually care about this, but on the other hand I have misgivings about the proposed siting of a helipad right across the street from me.

And this leads to the observation that while CEQA has become a go-to example of obstructive red tape/environmentalism gone mad in California, it's actually just a culmination of much longer-standing legal traditions benefiting property owners. Any place that you have sufficient density for people and businesses to annoy each other, property owners end up in court with disputes about who should give way to whom. Grumble as one might about property taxes, nobody wants the value of their property to go down, either on paper in the more abstract sense of having less enjoyment due to (say) a reduction in the pleasantness of one's view or the amount of sunlight one's garden receives (which factors ultimately affect the $ value of their property anyway). If you have paid $$$ to buy a fancy loft with an amazing view of the SF skyline, you and your neighbors are going to be most unhappy if some developer proposes erecting a skyscraper and replacing your view with that of a concrete wall 30 feet away. In a more general context, people are much less enthusiastic about paying property taxes for parks and schools if the erection of tall buildings blocks sunlight from ever reaching them (and that particular complaint is a frequent one in SF, where the hilly geography tends to exacerbate the issue).

The complaints of property owners carry a great deal of weight in arguments over planning, since they provide a large part of the current tax base (vs the hypothetical future tax revenue of any given development) and angry taxpayers are highly likely to vote out officials who don't do their bidding and vote in those who are willing to pass laws restricting the use or development of property. Indeed, annoyed property owners have historically not just objected to new development but have often successfully argued for a halt to existing land use which impacts their enjoyment of property: in a famous English legal case, Sturges v. Bridgeman (1879), a doctor bought a house in a nice neighborhood and then successfully sued a nearby candy-maker, who had been there for years, over the noise of the candy-making. The court reasoned that while the candy maker had indeed been there first, the business was much noiiser than anything else in the neighborhood and it was only a matter of time before someone brought it up, regardless of the fact that the doctor had 'come to the nuisance.' That seems wacky, but think about it in the context of a city like SF that used to have a lot more light industry inside the city borders. If you know the city well at street level, I'm sure you've come across places where there's a bunch of shiny new apartments and hip restaurants, stores etc., except for that one wierd lot with a run down small manufactory/liquor store whatever, that either doesn't fit with the neighborhood any mroe or whose customers have gone away due to changes in traffic patterns. The business situated there makes less and less money, the owners maintain it less and less well, and eventually someone launches a blight lawsuit in an attempt to force the current occupant out.

The practical upshot of this for development is that a developer has to take into account the loss-of-value that a project will impose upon neighboring property as a potential development cost, and a wise developer will secure their agreement by offering to pay that cost to the neighbors up front, because otherwise they'll probably just end up paying the same amount in damages later (unless they gamble on winning an arms race of legal transaction costs, which is much more viable in rural than urban areas).

dnr2• 12 years ago

I think you're confusing the Ellis Act with the SF Rent Ordinance, which establishes rent control and other things. The Ellis Act is generally considered to be hostile to tenants and friendly to landlords (as it sets up a sort of loophole to evict rent-controlled tenants).

varelse3• 12 years ago

Viewed as hostile to tenants by tenants I expect. It's a pretty expensive loophole that I've personally seen bring small landlords to economic ruin.

After all, heaven forbid we allow property owners to have control over their own property at any time.

epo• 12 years ago

Subletting rental property means you are abusing your landlord's assets, almost certainly violates the terms of your lease and probably violates their insurance policies. Eviction is an appropriate and proportionate response.

YokoZar• 12 years ago

The City of San Francisco is using this law to threaten people who do this with the explicit permission of their landlords. Or who own their own place.

scelerat4• 12 years ago

I guess I'm surprised to learn that any such subletting is illegal in SF.

Even prior to AirBnB it was really common to see offers on Craigslist or simply through traditional networks of friends and acquaintances, "Sublet my apartment while I'm traveling for six weeks," or "SFO-NYC apartment swap."

furyg3• 12 years ago

Six weeks would be legitimate in most places, depending on how the city defines "short term rental". Most cities have such a definition.

Of course, if you are a renter your rental agreement would need to allow for subletting or you would permission...

scelerat4• 12 years ago

Or two weeks, or whatever.

ghaff• 12 years ago

It's the difference between technically illegal (or against terms of lease/contract/etc.) activities taking place relatively informally and at small-scale and being institutionalized.

It's just like no one was going to come after you in the eighties because you made a mixtape but Napster was another story.

orky56• 12 years ago

It's much more widespread now with Airbnb than with Craigslist. Craigslist is more promiscuous and serendipitous whereas Airbnb is more corporate and explicit. If a whole company that is valued at $10b has a business model for this, one would assume that such a service is completely legal. That's the heart of the issue here. It's gotten to the size now where media, landlords, and government have to step in before it becomes a black market of sorts.

jonknee2• 12 years ago

Such subletting (which on a nightly basis isn't subletting at all) is illegal almost everywhere. There is a reason why hotels pay hotel taxes and it's not just because they're not a cool startup.

slg• 12 years ago

I think there is an interesting comparison to be made between Airbnb and past file sharing companies like Megaupload or Napster. In the ideal situation, these services can be used completely legally. However, a majority of these businesses' customers seem to be using the service for illegal means. These companies profit on the scale of their business, so they have little motivation to cut down on that illegal activity. The only real difference is the victim of the "crime" taking place. The victims in the case of file sharing companies were a powerful and centralized industry. The victims in the case of Airbnb are its customers. Is the fact that the laws are being broken by the same people they are meant to protect enough to make Airbnb more viable long term then the other businesses founded on illegal transactions?

ThePhysicist• 12 years ago

The lack of interest on the side of AirBnB is not very surprising: They know exactly that renting out apartments without a proper license is illegal in most parts of the world, they just don't care since they can externalize the risk to the owners of the apartments. Personally, I can understand the frustration of the people that are on the loosing end of this business model: Neighbors who find that their building has become a busy hotel complex, landlords who see the value of their property decline by overuse and noise, hotels that face an army of competitors which don't pay taxes and don't comply with existing regulations, and the whole community that faces increasing rents.

Uber provides a similar example by creating a "parallel market" for taxis and putting established companies (which comply with existing regulations) under extreme pressure. In general I'm a big fan of the "free market" model, but gaining an unfair advantage by just ignoring existing laws and hoping to get away with it is not a legitimate business practice, I think.

wuliwong• 12 years ago

I'd guess that the number of people receiving eviction letters "out of the blue" is pretty small. I recently had a couple run-ins with my management company and the last thing they want to do is evict me. They just want me to stop the offending behavior.

I think the important thing is the agreement between tenant and landlord (or condo association, etc). From my perspective, if those agreements are specific about no subletting then I don't see how it even matters if there is a city-wide ban? There isn't a city-wide ban of smoking in residential buildings in Atlanta but I am not allowed to smoke in mine. That seems to be analogous.

I believe the fault lies with both AirBnB and the renter. I see people mostly harping on AirBnB and it does seem they could do more to make the renter think about the legality of the situation or check a box stating that they have the legal right to do so. But as a long time renter, I've always been well aware that in every rental agreement I've signed, it is a violation to sublet at least with out consent from my landlord.

The idea that there is some connection between morality and abiding by all laws is silly. There are so many ridiculous laws on the books, it is laughable. Over here in Atlanta, it is illegal to engage in oral sex. I don't believe I'm am a bad person for breaking that law as often as humanly possible. Again, I think that violating a piece of state or city legislation of which I had nothing to do with enacting is far different from me violating an agreement which I myself signed.

avalaunch• 12 years ago

I imagine renters are more likely to get eviction letters out of the blue if they are living in a rent controlled property and their landlord is thus incentivized to evict and raise the rent.

worldsoup• 12 years ago

the article made it sound like the city/planning department was serving the eviction notice...not the landlord. Not sure how that would work though.

winstonx2• 12 years ago

Many posts here express dismay at Airbnb's selective disregard for the law.

Companies often ignore laws when it is expected to be profitable. It's a simple matter of risk management. And it is a straightforward consequence of our economic and legal system.

See this 2012 article "Should Companies Obey the Law If Breaking It Is More Profitable?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/should-companie...

npizzolato2• 12 years ago

Then we should change the equation. Maybe if we started prosecuting executives that break the law instead of just fining the companies, we would start having companies that follow the law.

bsder5• 12 years ago

Exactly. Companies need to receive the death penalty for some of these infractions so that there is no incentive to game the laws.

After a investors lose 100%, they will stop funding companies that do illegal stuff.

lafar6502• 12 years ago

How is it legal to take a commision from illegal activity? If people are using AirBNB for breaking the law, AirBNB should be prosecuted too.

taude• 12 years ago

Our condo association is updating the bi-laws for forbid short-term subletting. I'm sure other owner-occupied places will eventually, too, especially in many high-priced urban neighborhoods. Who wants to live in an expensive home they purchased to only have neighbors renting it out for short-term rentals?

greggarious2• 12 years ago

I don't think this entirely will kill AirBnB.

For example, I used AirBnB when doing an internship. Since it was >30 days, it was legal. I liked that I was able to read reviews, verify identities, and in a worst case scenario contact my credit card company's fraud department and get my money back.

There's a huge demand for medium term sublets in SF. People doing internships, people who need a place to get some breathing room for a couple months while they hunt for a more permanent space, that sort of thing.

Is it worth billions? Probably not. But I'd say it plays as useful a role as say, Craigslist.

bowlofpetunias• 12 years ago

On a related note, the city of Amsterdam recently distributed a clear and friendly leaflet regarding the do's and don'ts of private short-term rentals: http://www.iamsterdam.com/holiday%20rental%20guidelines

Clearly it's a prelude to a crack down, but the rules are clear, reasonable and communicated well up front.

IanDrake• 12 years ago

Ah, the never ending chain of well meaning laws that require more questionable laws, backed up by objectionable laws, with the gaps filled by laws only Stalin would be proud of.

People visit from out of town and use town resources, so we need to tax them without taxing the locals...let's create a hotel tax. The locals don't pay it, so no one cares.

How do we track the hotels to make sure we get our tax money? We'll need a licensing process. Again no one cares.

Hotels form a lobby and say, hey, we're paying these taxes and getting these licenses, maybe you should create a few laws to protect us and limit the licenses so we stay in business. Some people care.

Finally, a neighbor sees my house and my frequent guests (because I have a lot of friends that visit) and reports me to the Gestapo and says I might be renting my place out on AirBnb. Without any due process I get fined for violating a law meant to protect an industry that pays taxes to pay for the visitors that use city services that I actually live in and pay taxes. Now I really care, but it's too late.

Violating your lease is wrong, but so is violating due process. I also believe I have the right as a property owner to rent out my property as long as its purpose doesn't change.

samstave• 12 years ago

How about SF focus on the shanigans of corrupt poiticians, like Leland Ye and others, and STFU about an actual great service like AirBnB.

If they want to regulate it, make AirBnB carry massive insurance - divide that cost of insurance across the thousands-of-user-hours per nightly rental.

xcntktn2• 12 years ago

"Airbnb's website tells people to check local laws and their leases. A specific section on San Francisco explains the prohibition on short-term rentals and links to various city codes."

So why doesn't AirBnB simply disallow listings from SF? Worried that will impact their valuation?

d0m• 12 years ago

It's a recurrent theme to see somewhat illegal startups becoming massive and then adjusting for the laws. I.e. youtube, airbnb, rapgenius.

That's one kind of unfair advantage that startups have over bigger organisations where they can spread and grow quickly even if a bit illegal (or on the grey line).

I'm just speculating here but I'm wondering if it couldn't be a good indicator of success for upcoming startups.. I.e. something a tiny big illegal gaining some adoptions. But then, it's fair to ask, how far are founders willing to go in the "illegal" side for the success of their startup?

abalashov3• 12 years ago

I have a fairly libertarian view of local regulations, and, unlike many commentators on the issue, have little sympathy for NIMBY attitudes from neighbours. In my opinion, if someone rents out a rented apartment, that should be subordinated to the subletting clause in their lease, but if someone owns an apartment, they should be able to rent it out to whomever they please, at whatever frequency, and charge whatever price they like to do so. They are, of course, obligated to take responsibility for any disruptions, nuisances, damage, etc. caused by the guests, as per normal building regulations, but I don't think the possibility of renting itself should be impaired by any local regulations. The Airbnb model is simply disruptive, and hotels don't like that. That's how I see it.

I am especially unsympathetic to the argument that the neighbours have a "right" not to live "next to a hotel". There's nothing inherently hostile about a hotel as an application of an apartment, versus any other less controversial applications of an apartment that result in occasional comings and goings of strangers, such as parties and social gatherings. If the hotel causes them specific problems, they have a right to redress those specific grievances. That's about it.

My view of this is strongly connected to the idea that property rights to real estate should incorporate the freedom to use the property as you'd like, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I don't find much plausibility in the idea that renting it out in and of itself harms anyone. Many things that Airbnb renters can do can cause annoyance or harm. So can a drunk friend getting rowdy at my dinner party. So what? I can't have guests? Oh, I can? What about guests that stay a few days? Yeah? Why not paying guests then?

geebee4• 12 years ago

I've seen a few versions of this comment. You are stating your interest in converting a single family house into a hotel, and then stating that you see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to do this.

I disagree. While I understand that renting out bedrooms on airbnb is a far more profitable use of a single family house than providing a place for your kids to sleep, I purchased a house in an area zoned for single family use. When I purchased, I traded my right to turn my house into a hotel in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that the neighbors I share a wall with won't do this either.

davidf18• 12 years ago

As a resident in Manhattan where the situation of Airbnb renting facilitating illegal use of apartments. We pay a lot of money to have security in our buildings with doormen and other secure systems. We do not want transients in our buildings.

Airbnb is intentionally setting up a situation where people are breaking the law and this should not be tolerated. They could easily have a questionnaire that vets facilities for legal Airbnb use as part of the signup process for cities such as NYC and SF. Moreover, they should have Airbnb employees verify that the apartments listed on the Airbnb site are following laws.

The real issue is that a number of reputable firms are funding Airbnb and it is these firms people should pressure. They are in fact, funding a firm which knowingly facilitates illegal activities in NYC and SF.

According to Crunchbase these firms include: Y Combinator, Sequoia Capital, Greylock Partners, SV Angel, Andreessen Horowitz, Jeff Bezos, Ashton Kushner, and others. Some of these firms such as Sequoia, Greylock, and Andreessen Horowitz get funds from other organizations or individuals and these funders of Sequoia, Greylock, and Andreessen Horowitz should withdraw their funds if their funds are knowingly used to finance illegal activities or a site that facilitates illegal activities.

These firms are knowing funding a firm which they know is helping people to break the law and should be held accountable for funding firms which break the law.

These firms should hire as managers of Airbnb and other firms which they fund who have zero tolerance for breaking the law or trying to violate the spirit of the law.

I do applaud Airbnb's attempts to lower the cost of transient stays in NYC and SF. But this should be done through a legal mechanism such as building low-cost hotels in NYC and SF (with partners perhaps) and then listing these low-cost hotels on their site.

S.F. cracks down on Airbnb rentals

Related Stories