Hacker News Reader

Comment by coding123 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not coming from any experience in this comment, but I'm wondering if AirBNB rentals will ever have such extra regulation since there are no long-hotel hallways, no fire-escapes, elevators, etc... simply because these are already residences - are we to suggest we need normal homes to be safer than they already are? If these places are "unsafe" in this regard, shouldn't it be improved whether or not they are being rented on a nightly basis?

View on HN

Law usually needs to be tailor to the specific facts of a situation. Here there is a clear difference in a building being used as a residence with a small and consistent set of people using it as opposed to a much higher volume of guests using it for a business purpose. Just think about the increased risk of accidents, fire, or crime introduced as multiple guests stay in a space: they will increase the risk of crime by bringing valuables in rotating shifts, increased risk of fire as some guests will smoke or bring faulty electronic devices; I could go on, but the point seems clear. Higher traffic use results in greater risk. These factual differences should be taken into account when writing an insurance contract (a form of "law") or regulation (also a form of "law").

You're in an unfamiliar place and a fire breaks out. If there are no working smoke detectors and you're asleep, you'll probably die. You're making a meal on a stove and you accidentally start a fire. Is there a fire extinguisher... anywhere? If there is, is it even working? If there's a fire and it's smokey and your main route of exit is cut off, do you know how to get out a back way? Is there even a back way? Nobody is checking for these things when you rent an unregulated room from a random stranger on the internet.

If you own your own place and are lax in your upkeep, fire prevention, fire detection, and safety measures, it's likely you who will pay the price. If you're renting your place out as an illegal hotel, you're affecting unsuspecting guests.

My wife and are getting licensed for foster care, and this week I'm installing several smoke detectors and CO detectors. We're required to have a minimum of one CO and smoke detector per floor, and an additional smoke detector in each bedroom.

Was our house acceptably safe without those? Probably.

Is it going to be better now? Certainly. It's a bit of work installing 7+ devices, but I understand that we've reduced a lot of risk.

Same thing with the fire extinguishers and other safety equipment we'll have to pick up.

Rental units here have somewhat similar requirements, and I think short-term rentals should have similar safety features.

That's probably just changes in the regs since the house was built, not that foster children (or tourists in the case of a hotel) are more fragile than others.

Good standards are good, double standards are not.

Right, but my view is that certain "qualifying events" should trigger public interest requirements for more safety.

Buying a house? Make sure stuff is up to code, get an inspector, but it's on you.

Housing kids for the state? There's a public interest in making sure they're safe.

Renting out a room or building? Safe thing (and there are already regulations here that are stricter than those applying to private he owners)

Renting out a room or house short term? Again, same thing. This should at least be the same as a long term rental.

EDIT: anyway, my original point was that there is precedence for safety regs even if you don't have long hallways or tall buildings.

Fire escapes aren't required merely to look cool, they provide a second form of egress from a hotel room in the event of e.g. a fire, which is a common requirement and not relevant to houses which will have other forms of secondary egress. Even so, my non-hotel apartment has a fire escape because the hallway through the front door is the only other path out of the building.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com