That NYC makes my "common-sense" rule so hard to implement supports my larger point: you can't just make an exasperated appeal to "common-sense", because people (and existing legal regimes) differ so much on what's sensible/fair. (My "common-sense" solution to the unfairness of tenants subletting for more than the controlled rate would be to phase out rent-control, and do so immediately if there's evidence of tenant-subletting at a higher-rate.)
The lawsuit is also what the regulated system relies upon, in the end, to enforce its judgements. It's a last resort, but always part of the balance when other discussion and leverage fails.
Why would an AirBnb tenant be more likely to burn down a building, or less likely to compensate after negligence, than any other leaseholder-tenant or houseguest? I suspect AirBnb tenants are less of a risk: they're paying a market rate, unprotected by laws which shield problematic tenants, vetted by the reputation system, and backed by AirBnb's guarantees. A landlord and neighbors seem equally (or more) at risk of uncompensated damages from all other kinds of occupants.
The lawsuit is also what the regulated system relies upon, in the end, to enforce its judgements. It's a last resort, but always part of the balance when other discussion and leverage fails.
Why would an AirBnb tenant be more likely to burn down a building, or less likely to compensate after negligence, than any other leaseholder-tenant or houseguest? I suspect AirBnb tenants are less of a risk: they're paying a market rate, unprotected by laws which shield problematic tenants, vetted by the reputation system, and backed by AirBnb's guarantees. A landlord and neighbors seem equally (or more) at risk of uncompensated damages from all other kinds of occupants.