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?
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.
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.
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?
One long-term solution that could emerge is for it to be common to have provisions in leases that forbid both tenants and landlords from doing such things. It might take a while for that to happen, but if what you describe becomes much of a problem, it's likely to happen.
What if you're rent-controlled and the landlord says "go ahead, break the lease! woohoo!"?
Then your bargaining power is reduced in exchange for your below-market rent. Sounds fair to me.
What's the contract law remedy for unscrupulous businesspeople who buy entire buildings and convert them into Airbnb hostels?
That's a slightly different issue. I don't think this is necessarily unscrupulous to do this, but there's certainly a potential for externalities.
"Could emerge"? Have you ever read a residential lease? I've rented (counting real quick) 8 different places in 3 different cities and every single one of them gave the landlord control over sublessors. I could not have lawfully put any of those apartments on Airbnb.
This came up last Abnb thread, and a bunch of my fellow message board nerds insisted that it was a commonplace to have leases that didn't forbid Abnb, but I don't buy it. I think the right rule of thumb is "you can't do it without breaking the promise you made when you rented the apartment and exposing yourself not only to eviction but to civil liability".
Incidentally, the case law behind landlord oversight over sublessors is very solid; this issue is some substantial fraction of every tenant dispute ever, because people very commonly want to break their leases, and expect their landlord to accept the very first person the tenant finds to occupy the apartment.
> 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?
Demand a no-hostel clause at signing. It's silly, but there's your answer.
And BTW, having lived in a truly rent-controlled (1/5th market rate) place before, "go ahead, break the lease! woohoo!" is all your landlord says anyways.
And so your remedy, when your landlord, who has promised you an apartment for a year at a specified price, is to move apartments, and then spend 2 years chasing them in court?
Incidentally: I sued a landlord once a few years ago over a very simple issue (they unlawfully withheld my security deposit) and did not pull "2 years" out of my butt.
Inadequate enforcement of contracts is a separate debate. But living somewhere with strong tenant laws helps. For instance, where I live, people can (and do) sue their landlord for damages when their quality of life is affected by the landlord breaching some part of the lease.
"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.
I don't think Hilton, Hyatt, Wyndham or Marriott give a shit about Airbnb; they do a full Airbnb valuation of real revenue every other quarter, and the market they service isn't "random places to stay", it's "hotel rooms".
The preponderance of evidence available to message board nerds like us suggests strongly to me that enforcement of these laws is being driven by real complaints.
Airbnb is a future threat to the hotel industry. I'm sure they recognize that. Most people are potential "hotels". This will keep rates low AND attract new entrants (because some money is better than no money).
Airbnb rooms are usually more pleasant than the lower quality hotels a lot of businesses book.
Once it becomes socially normal in larger corporations, a lot of employees will ask to be booked with airbnb.
Everything you say here is obvious; you are making the obvious case that the big bad hotel industry is conspiring to shut down Airbnb. Anyone on HN would, if asked to advocate the position that hotels were conspiring against Airbnb, make exactly the same case.
I'm saying: I doubt that's what's happening. I've heard too many anecdotal stories about complaints, and am too capable of looking at (a) revenue numbers for hotels and (b) stats on how people book hotel rooms to think that anyone at Marriott is really being kept up at night about this.
At some point, Airbnb will be too big and disruptive for the major chains to ignore. But now? I doubt it. I think cities are reacting to complaints.
I didn't say the hotel industry is behind the laws. I have no idea what's begin them.
I said, I'm sure some people in the hotel industry recognize airbnbs potential threat. I was responding to your first paragraph. I should have been clearer.
> Airbnb rooms are usually more pleasant than the lower quality hotels a lot of businesses book.
I suggest you browse areas with high AirBNB usage. In NYC, a nice AirBNB will cost roughly the same as the equivalent hotel room.
> Once it becomes socially normal in larger corporations, a lot of employees will ask to be booked with airbnb.
This is unlikely. The only reason to choose AirBNB is price, and the low price options in popular destinations are rarely particularly nice.
As a corporation, we're willing to spend the money necessary to be guaranteed determinism. Nobody in the travel department would want to deal with rebooking an employee if their AirBNB experience turned out to be poor.
I can book an employee a room at The Intercontinental and I know that there will be no issues, and we can worry about things that actually matter, like getting work done.
What you say about Airbnb vs. hotel costs in NYC is wildly not my experience. At the high end, the rooms available on Airbnb simply aren't available in hotels at all; I'd wager, if you did your best at apples-apples, Airbnb is roughly half as expensive as a hotel room.
The nondeterminism thing with Abnb is a good point. I've always figured that if something fell through, I'd just book a same-night hotel, but it was a concern.
Two NYC-area Abnb rentals, off the top of my head:
* A 4-bedroom 2-storey attached (townhouse-style) house in W'burg, less than a block from the Bedford stop; full kitchen, back yard(!). Cost less than any 3-star pair of adjoining bedrooms we could find --- and we booked 2 months in advance.
* A full-kitchen king bed studio in Chelsea, for ~150/night.
The last one is from a few months ago, the other from last year.
By the way: both of these feel like textbook cases of the kind of situation where Abnb is a win for everyone involved. The owner of the house was picky about us, checked in on us while we were there, and was renting a whole building to one party. The Chelsea apartment was its occupant's primary residence; they were renting it out while themselves traveling.
I think it's the situations where people are literally running full-time businesses on top of Abnb where we start to run into trouble.
My argument isn't based on price. Some people will always prefer hotels. You know exactly what you're getting.
Others prefer the airbnb experience, even at the same price. You get to meet new people, cook your own food if you want (anyone eating a special diet wants this), you often get to stay in a smaller building with its own style.
Some people hate all that stuff. But less than 100% of current hotel bookers. Enough people love what airbnb offers that this should start making a difference at the margins.
NYC may have more problems. I'm in Montreal, where there are a lot of renters but few horror stories.
In any case, the airbnb review system is getting better. People will learn how to avoid the dumps.
My argument isn't based on price. Some people will always prefer hotels. You know exactly what you're getting.
Others prefer the airbnb experience, even at the same price. You get to meet new people, cook your own food if you want (anyone eating a special diet wants this), you often get to stay in a smaller building.
Some people hate all that stuff. But less than 100% of current hotel bookers. Enough people love what airbnb offers that this should start making a difference at the margins.
NYC may have more problems. I'm in Montreal, where there are a lot of renters but few horror stories.
In any case, the airbnb review system is getting better. People will learn how to avoid the dumps.
If it is like you say, it sounds a bit overboard to shut down everything. Maybe with some effort they could come up with regulation to solve those complaints while keeping the good renters legal.
Here's another thing to think about: over the long run, regulation can help business; lack of regulation might harm it.
When we talk about regs on HN, we tend to be thinking of rules, codes, and controls restricting what businesses can do. That's obviously a major function of regulation.
But another function of regulation is removal of uncertainty.
The alternative to regulation is contract and tort law. Airbnb participants who violate leases and homeowners agreements will be sued for breach; participants who create noise, theft, crime, and increased costs for neighbors will be sued for tort claims.
Court cases take for- fucking- ever to resolve themselves. Every B2B case I've witnessed up close dragged until it settled --- I've never seen (firsthand) a company stick it out to trial. The one (trivial) case I was involved in directly --- a statutory claim for unlawfully withheld security deposits --- took years to resolve.
Perhaps partly in recognition of that, and partly because of the spectacular cost of representation, the damages awarded in these cases can be enormous.
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.
Strangers, even unvetted ones, almost never pose a danger to children. The vast majority of harm done to children is done by friends and family. Having more strangers around makes your kids safer, if anything.
This is why, when I need sitting for my middle-school aged kids, I drop them off in the middle of Union Station instead of bringing them to their grandparents.
> Strangers, even unvetted ones, almost never pose a danger to children. The vast majority of harm done to children is done by friends and family. Having more strangers around makes your kids safer, if anything.
I hear this a lot and my guess is this is simply a function of how much time family and friends spend with a child (in relative privacy) compared to complete strangers. The surface area of attack is way smaller for random people; they don't have the "reasonable" opportunity.
So if you were looking for a babysitter, would you prefer someone randomly selected on airbnb by your downstairs neighbor to someone you've vetted yourself?
The real key here is to look at who does the selecting.
The danger comes from the self selected, if you have a crowd of random people and you choose one at random, then the chances that they have malicious intent are related to the incidence of that in the population; OTOH if you ask for volunteers, or worse, if someone spontaneously volunteers then the chance is way higher...
Lol. Most harm to anyone, regardless of age, is caused by friends and family, but that is primarily because friends and family have the most opporunities.
If strangers were afforded equal access to your children, the numbers would not be so favorable. Having strangers around does not make your kids safer. At best, your kinds would be just as safe around strangers. At worst, they would be exposed to far more risk.
Where is the data to support your claim? It's possible that strangers are more dangerous on a per opportunity basis, but I suspect it's untrue. For example, children spend about the same time at school as at home (at least on weekdays). Yet abuse is much more frequent at home.
While I wouldn't try to tell someone how they'll feel after they have children (especially with 100% accuracy), I can say that as a parent of two small children, I wouldn't like to see a constant stream of new people constantly coming and going from the apartment across the hall. I've lived in a flat with a shared back yard, and my kids knew the people who lived below us. I knew them well and became friends with them, and I do find the notion that my kids would have been safer around a steady stream of strangers kind of absurd. I wouldn't have wanted a new group of people I don't know hanging out in the backyard where my kids play every weekend.
I personally feel that short term rentals work very well in some places, but they can be very disruptive to neighborhoods as well. I guess it comes down to whether you feel that the preservation of the residential nature of a neighborhood is a legitimate reason to regulate. As you can probably tell from the way I set this up, I do.
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.
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?
That is not what the article said. Here is the direct quote:
"In 2010 New York passed a law requiring a minimum thirty-day stay for any rental in a residential building—in effect making shorter-term rentals, the bulk of the market, illegal."
I did read the article. What I read from your comment was, you feel like regulations covering lodging are a new thing, and moreover that cities don't need regulated lodging.
> 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.
"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.
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.
By the way there is also the chance of the renter having their things owned.
If I stay at a hotel there is at least some control over who can enter my room and presumably key card logs, as well as videos showing access (and a safe in the room). While this does not provide absolute security obviously, I feel more safe leaving my laptop in a hotel room then in someone's apartment where anyone (old friend or perhaps the super) could have a key and something could disappear.
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.
Actually, this article reminded me of the "Gangs of New York", where cops and firemen were standing by a burning building, waiting for the occupants to leave, just so they could run in and take all the belongings.
Not saying this is the case, but not saying it isn't either.
I think you need to reread your deed, or move off of Section 8 housing. My deed explicitly states that I am the owner of my condo, as well as a % of the building and land on which the condo resides.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The GP said that having too many renters increases the risk of property damage (which is very true), to which you replied (essentially) - why worry, let them damage, the insurance will pick the tab - to which I said that it's the actual damage, not the cost of repairs that is an issue.
Rules regarding the rental of private property to a private party is a private matter in my opinion. Private parties already regulate the user of communal property thru vehicles such as a HOA. If you have a condo then the HOA can decide if renting is appropriate. Having the government dictate how your property can be used is more disturbing than having to attend a HOA meeting. Sure, you might agree with this particular regulation, but how about when the other political party takes power and decides they want to use your property differently. No thank you.
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.
I am speaking of my rights in the community, not to the property. That is, should there be a speed bump on the street, should a WalMart be allowed to build on the condemned lot around the corner.
Then you're moving into tautological territory. Those rights are held by your landlord. If he proxies them to you, then you have them, if he doesn't, you don't.
I am thinking of instances where a landlord's interest are aligned with tenants generally. For instance, fighting neighborhoods who use political connections to oppose rental development in central city neighborhoods ("mini dorms").
Discrimination is discrimination. These are public neighborhoods. Protecting one's property value does not make discrimination noble or any less discriminatory.
If you are a voter, you have the same rights by law, and this would apply to the issues you brought up.
If you are not a voter, you do not and should not have the same rights because your social and economic investment in the community is not as great as your landlord's, or your underwater neighbor's.
Indeed. Not to mention a lot of agreements specifically state that the renter is not to sublet their apartment. If the person doesn't like it, just find a landlord willing to allow it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Don't fines solve this problem? The owner gets fined and either passes on the fine to the renter or pays it and has an incentive to police renters more thoroughly.
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.
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.
"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.
It's different when every rating is gated by actual money-changing-hands-in-commerce, as with AirBNB, Uber, and similar.
Further, with the overlay of a giant social network, you can rent your spot out only to people with whom you share some indirect but useful level of acquaintance. So you can ask before renting: "Is Mr. X an inconsiderate ass?" And Mr. X knows bad behavior can affect their reputation moreso than just via a semi-anonymous blurb on a website.
That's not true. We take reputation extremely seriously. Unlike traditional listing sites, every review is tied to a financial transaction. Additionally, we have many other mechanisms in place to prevent astroturfing.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.