The great thing about the free market is you get the choice. You don't have to pass a law to force everybody to also do as you choose.
There are definitely problems with some AirBNBs. Renting out an apartment as if it was a hotel room should not be allowed. However. that should be a contract issue between tenant/landlord or owner/HOA, and also a local zoning issue.
That said, there are also times that AirBNBs are very worthwhile. I've stayed in homes in the desert, far away from anything else. I've stayed in non-touristy neighborhoods in Venice, Stockholm, and Havana, that let me get away from the common areas and see local life.
Hotels definitely have its pros and cons, as do AirBNBs, but there should not be federal regulation outright banning it.
Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
You have hotels either way and you clearly can't save the market for not-hotel rooms by prohibiting it entirely. Where is the harm in allowing someone to knowingly take a risk in exchange for a discount?
I've stayed in hotels that were frequented by prostitutes (not a value judgement, but it does change the experience of the stay considerably), hotels with drug dealers in the parking lot, etc. Even going with a big brand, I've had extremely disappointing experiences.
Most recently, I stayed at the Hyatt Regency in Louisville, which is a highrise hotel in which all the rooms are located around a central lobby. This is fine, assuming there aren't people screaming in the lobby, but surprise, there were literally people screaming in the lobby for long periods in each of the two nights we stayed there, and repeated calls to the front desk didn't resolve the situation.
We'd planned a longer stay, but ended up relocating after the second night of interrupted sleep, and somewhat ironically, ended up in a super quaint AirBNB that was a fraction of the price.
Yes, AirBNB can be a bit of a crapshoot, but that isn't a problem that's unique to AirBNB.
On the first night there a child cat burgled one of our wallets. He scaled the side of the building and came in through an open window. We caught him in the act, but he was too quick and scampered out the way he came. When we complained to the host (the pharmacy downstairs, really) they asked if we wanted a NEW apt in a different building or another apartment in that one (basically two apts for a week for the price of two nights in a hotel)
Now when people talk about Air B&B, I think of courier dentistry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX_GfxGIWQs&t=1s
Used to be about half that pre-Euro!
Isn't AirBnb a party to that issue?
If AirBnb stuck to it's early role as way for people to rent rooms in homes or vacation homes, it would be an amazing service. By seeking to "disrupt" the hotel industry, they kind of poisoned the well.
Another is access for the disabled. I've stayed in a few AirBNBs that would absolutely have been off-limits to someone in a wheelchair, but the number of times I've stayed in a hotel that wasn't disability-accessible? Zero.
Yeah, choice is great when you're talking about saving some bucks and taking on the risk of sleeping in an essentially-unlicensed hotel, but what about the people for whom the regulations guarantee them access to commerce or travel at all?
Like others have said, regulations develop out of a reaction to a lousy status quo. I think it'd be a shitty world to live in where people with disabilities were being shut out again, to the extent they used to be.
(Am I saying that, if you're going to let your room commercially, you should make it ADA-compliant? Maybe so. It's at least worth thinking about, instead of saying, by default, screw those folks in wheelchairs.)
All new buildings in NYC must have elevators/general wheel chair accessibility, but the old buildings are still there, and still being used.
Further, there are numerous AirBnB rentals that existed as licensed rental properties long before AirBnB came around that are most certainly not wheelchair accessible.
I think it would at least be fair for AirBnB to require listings that are/are not wheelchair accessible to say so on their listings. Beyond that I don't think it's fair to require owners of those properties to invest a large sum of money to make it accessible.
For me, the question that's worth asking is, how do we ensure, as new ways of doing old things develop, that the people who've been shut out in the past (i.e. the people that the ADA protects) aren't just getting shut out again?
People in wheelchairs, that's a thing. The ADA is the way that, up til now, we've set up to enforce that businesses must accommodate them. Stuff like AirBNB and Uber is bringing an absolute ton of new individuals, essentially doing business, who've simply never had to think about making business accessible to people with disabilities.
Maybe there's a new regulatory framework that needs to develop? Maybe there should be a burden on the companies like AirBNB and Uber to ensure that, wherever they operate, some percentage of their service offering is wheelchair-accessible? (Even if they're buying property or hiring drivers directly to satisfy that requirement?) I don't know, just brainstorming at this point, I guess.
It would cost those businesses more, of course, but I ask myself which world I'd rather live in--one in which my two wheelchair-bound friends could actually use AirBNB wherever they went, or one in which I said "hey, sucks you're locked out of that experience, but free market, yolo"?
That cabin I rented with some friends in bumblefuck an hour outside of Boulder, CO - should they be required to install an elevator when the car we drove could just barely even get us there (even in the summer time)?
100% accessibility seems impossible (barring significant improvements in wheelchairs, which are definitely coming), but where exactly is the line?
I don't really know the answer. I think in general if you're making something new - you should make it as accessible as is reasonably feasible, but how much should we require to be "backported"?
People talk a lot about the free market, but I see a lot of externalities at play here. Am I as a landlord to be held responsible for the damage to my units caused by somebody running a gypsy hotel, in explicit violation of their lease, paying me not one extra penny? Are their neighbors obligated to deal with a bunch of spring breakers partying through the wall, also for free?
This whole thing smells like a bunch of valley billionaires arguing that they should be above the law so they can make their IPO valuation come out right.
Most airbnb landlords will quickly realize that it takes a huge amount of work to welcome guest for short stays, then they'll realize that they might loose a lot of money if not filled all the time.
I think it is grossly inflating the scale at which it is now possible.
My point was that AirBnB has vastly inflated the potential scale of revolving door short black market sublets (the loud, drunken vacationers that seem to be the source of most disgruntlement/anti AirBnB mentality here in the HN comments) much more than, say, craigslist.
AirBnb is already self regulating quickly: You rent a property, the guests damage it, you're not renting it on airbnb again for the next decade.
Or you simply realize that it's not sustainable. Revolving door short sublets are, in fact, usually not sustainable.
Great AirBnB experience, literally no complaints, and no neighbors close enough to give us the stink eye (admittedly we were staying in the one that was in the middle of the three on that street). Mind you we were generally respectful and there for a very short time, not enough to really piss anyone off.
That seems sustainable to me, whether or not it's legal.
People AirBnB'ing their apartment in my current building (which has a 24 hour doorman/woman/person who pretty much knows everyone who lives there? obviously that shit wouldn't fly for long, never mind that it's flagrantly against the lease we all signed, there's no way to fly under the radar).
Also, the price is expensive for guests... but as host, AirBnb takes 20-30% commission and you don't get paid for empty times. There are lots of emptiness if you do short rents.
Have you ever looked at the AirBNB rating system? It's a disaster. Five stars or get abuse. Without a trustable rating system here you won't get a free market.
Your opinion piece is fine until your last line where you support using the state to ban other people from making the choice that you prefer not to make.
What's wrong with that? Virtually every regulatory law does this. Unless you are arguing that the state should not be able to regulate anything, I don't see why supporting regulations in one industry or another is a bad thing.
Why?
* Increased traffic
* More noise
* Greater odds of criminal activity
* Resultant reduction in nearby property values
These are not theoretical and are part of the reason why zoning laws exist.
>Neighbors of what critics say is a “party house” in the Glenwood community told the Glendale News-Press that the constant partying in the 1300 block of Norton Avenue was interfering with their sleep in the early-morning hours. They said they’d find beer bottles in the street, people fighting on the sidewalk in the early-morning hours, parking clogged and loud music blaring.
>Frank Higginbotham, who lives across the street from the house, said he saw tour buses with about 30 people pull up to the residence for a party about two weeks ago.
>Earlier in December, neighbors, said, there was one party that had to be shut down using a powerful spotlight from a hovering police helicopter and several police officers.
>“This was like a war zone,” he said, adding that parties have been going on every weekend for months. “Every night I came home, I was scared to think about what I was going to find here.”
Of course running it out of an apartment runs afoul of every rental agreement I've seen.
I think a lot of the arm waving about airbnb is because of the latter situation. I don't think many people seem to have issues with renting out a spare room.
Yeah, that's really the prohibitionist mindset there.
the fire safety issue is a bit of a red herring. that's something that is the responsibility of the landlord and the local fire safety inspector anyway, not really part of the long term vs short term rental debate.
the issues related to ABB tenants are about their lack of responsibility and accountability within the community, since they will be gone (forever) in a short period of time. the issues related to ABB hosts is that they evade regulations that their competitors cannot evade, and that (in some situations) they violate community laws or norms that exist for good reasons.
Which was the only point I was making.
> that's something that is the responsibility of the landlord
So you agree it's red herring because fire safety is already regulated..
> the issues related to ABB tenants are about their lack of responsibility and accountability within the community
If I could demonstrate that responsibility and accountability were already regulated in communities - would you agree that your objections are red herring as well?
And you can't run an unsafe hotel.
On the other hand, some of my best travel experiences have been eating meals with hosts, staying up talking about life and drinking by a bonfire with hosts, and otherwise getting the authentic AirBNB experience. Of course I wouldn't say that the hotel-type experience isn't out there (it may even be cheaper than hotels) but that's not why I do AirBNB. It would be a shame (both for hosts and guests) to have fewer opportunities like this available.
You might not have changed the smoke detector batteries in a decade, though. Fine if you want to risk your own life that way, but we've decided as a society that renting a hotel room means extra safety requirements and checks to protect the guests.
Sorry, how did "we as a society" decide that? Governments are deciding the things you're talking about. What we as a society can do, is post and read reviews on hotels and Airbnb rentals, and we certainly do this.
If all you do is punch a ballot, yeah, that's lazy, and yeah, you're basically letting other people decide these things for you.
I certainly have and do, and it is a pretty frustrating thing with which to deal. Thank goodness society is not bound by what government can do.
>That's how "we as a society" decided it.
I think that's a pretty low standard for judging society's opinion on anything. You get a lot more feedback on what society thinks by examining the day to day transactions and exchanges we're all doing.
Governments are made up of our elected representatives and those our elected representatives appoint/hire. If we're unhappy with those decisions, we vote for someone else and tell them to change them. See Trump and the EPA for a current-events sample of this in action - the Right feels things are too regulated, they won the election, and now we're getting a bunch of regulations removed (to our likely detriment, IMO).
This paints a rosier picture about the possibilities of change in such systems than I think are warranted, though I know some might argue that the sclerosis of politics is a feature as much as it is a drawback. That said, we make decisions, sometimes daily, regarding things we want in life. It may be as simple as which kinds of coffee to drink, or which laptop to buy, and those choices result in areas of society that can and do change with some speed.
If people knowingly help that child labour scene to flourish, by what metric do we decide that "society" doesn't, in fact, like it, despite its actions? Election results? Pulling a lever or filling in a ballot every X years, by comparison, doesn't involve anything remotely close to that level of engagement and activity. Even writing the occasional letter to a legislator is a paltry amount of effort, by comparison.
I'm not intending to be glib here, I'm quite familiar with the arguments that equate society with representative government. I'm just interested in how representative such systems really are of said socieity.
Completely false premise. They're not "knowingly" helping the child labor scene - they're just picking the cheap shirt. Walmart doesn't put up a sign "this stuff made with child slave labor!" - they might not even know themselves.
If Walmart did put up such a sign, it might have a shaming effect. Obviously they don't and we shouldn't expect it. People who are aware of what's going on can go in and out while plugging their ears, doing the equivalent of singing, "naah-naah" to the origins of their products.
Meanwhile, government, which I'm to understand is to be equated with society, seems to take no issue with trade with countries where such conditions prevail. Every once in a while, a politician (like Trump) will decry how China (as an example) does business, but there seems to be little action on that front.
>Environmental health specialists inspect every hotel at least twice a year or more often as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the Hotel, Food Service Establishment, and Public Swimming Pool Act of 1985* and the hotel rules and regulations. Current hotel permits must be displayed in a prominent location for the public to view and the inspection report must be available for public scrutiny.
https://www.tn.gov/health/article/eh-hotels#sthash.fTwnqZnV....
Because hotels are subject to those regulations. It's not optional for them. Why should it be optional for AirBnB hosts?
The distinction is purely legal - in this case, the semantics matter quite a bit.
At the end of they day they are directly competing with hotels. In order to ensure the competition is fair, they should be subject to the same regulations.
What if I just want to rent out one room in my home on the side, not as a business? Why, then, should I be subject to the same requirements as a huge corporation with dedicated multistory buildings, many more customers, staff, and so forth?
To me, it sounds like the taxi industry pre-Uber. Lots of questionable-value regulation created by incumbents that doesn't really hurt anyone in the real world when it's mostly ignored.
Of course they are. Are you paying the host to stay in a room they own? Hotel.
edit: for all you down voters, he is the dictionary definition of the word "hotel":
"an establishment providing accommodations, meals, and other services for travelers and tourists."
Which means every "Airbed and Breakfast" is a hotel.
Theres lots of places where AirBnB (or hosts on the platform) meets the definition of a hotel and simultaneously often fail to meet the legal obligations of a hotel.
I don't know whether it's the majority, but quite a lot of them are running hotels, though often illegal hotels under local law.
Just wait until an AirBNB customer dies in a fire because the property didn't meet fire safety requirements. AirBNB probably wouldn't survive the fallout.
As with most regulations, it drives up the cost a bit for the end user, but it's worthwhile - and when done properly, invisible to the consumer.
If a hotel room is just one of a thousand properties (the thinking goes) then the owner might be too casual about safety issues -- hence regs to force them to care. But if it's a room in the owner's very own house, there is no such "incentive incompatibility": a fire is much more than just a financial loss for them, so -- if anything -- they're overcautious! Thus, it's reasonable to exempt the renting out of one's primary residence from these additional safety regs.
With that said, your general point still stands: many of these hosts are "superhosts" who rent 3+ properties, which does (from the perspective of regulatory concerns) look like a hotel business and which therefore does merit similar regulation.
Who else has keys to the flat? Are you sure your electrical is up to code? How about plumbing, heating/cooling? Do you have a CO detector?
Safety regulations don't typically form out if nowhere. You grew up in a world where the previous generations lobbied for safety regulations in response to an actual lack of safety. It's like the new anti vaccinations movement- there's a whole generation who grew up not watching children be maimed and killed by what's now vaccine preventable infectious diseases so now suddenly vaccinations are poison. Absolutely no frame of reference.
In terms of safety hotel lobby is pissed because they have to follow regulations and pay associated taxes whereas AirBnB isn't. The hotel lobby certainly would be in favor of loosening safety regulations in general as compliance will certainly cut into their bottom line at least a little.
If it were actually about safety, the "hotel commission" would try to make it as easy and as cheap as possible to get inspected. The fact that they don't suggests it's more about gatekeeping.
Until you look at actual, individual, regulations–which tend to be codified common sense.
So even if most rules are common sense, that doesn't change the fact that most permit requirements are predatory business tactics.
I want to feed and house the homeless in my neighborhood but it's illegal due to "safety" concerns. Apparently them sleeping on the street and shitting in the bushes is safer than me building them a tiny house with a composting toilet and a wash basin.
Sure hope you're not talking about the tobacco lobby. Tell me which company paid for what safety regulation. I'd like to applaud these upstanding corporate citizens.
I'm pretty sure they would be in favor of tightening regulations as much as possible, as long as those regulations are draconically enforced. The incumbents can comply with anything and pass the buck to the customer while any potential competitor cannot enter the market because the upfront regulatory cost is so immense.
I'd like to address this. Not everyone can afford a new car complete with mandatory TPMS, side airbags, and traction control. When we as a society decide to put requirements on new cars, we price some marginal consumers out of a new car and into a less-safe used car.
As the price of new cars increases, so to does the price of those used cars. So there again, we're pushing less well off consumers into cars that aren't as safe.
Personally, I think manufacturers should have the ability to sell any car they want. At the same time, they should be required to put a notice on the window sticker that says "We used the value of $X to drive the design of our safety features" (or something like that). If you want an ultra-safe car, you look for one that has $1,000,000. But people knowingly buy motorcycles and Corvettes, so obviously not everyone has the same tolerance for risk.
Forcing unsafe cars out of the market through attrition has benefits for everyone else.
Airbnb isn't a hotel. It should have to live by "the rules", but those rules should be tailored to it's industry not a tangentially related industry threatened by its existence.
So in once camp, people are saying it should be regulated for what it feels like: a car. In the other camp, people are saying that it should be regulated for what it's made of: a motorcycle. There are good (and bad) arguments for both sides.
This is why I've stopped using AirBnB. I had used it for multiple business trips and personal stays, and in only 2 of the places I've stayed has the host had any sense of professionalism. One slept in and wasn't up at the time they said breakfast was served. I eventually left before they woke up. Another canceled at the last minute because they were traveling. Too late for me to alter my other travel plans, so my only option was to take an expensive hotel room I wouldn't have booked otherwise, or miss that part of my planned vacation. Another had family staying and they clearly weren't equipped for all the guests.
The problem with AirBnB is it's usually additional, passive income. It initially feels like this glorious free market, but there's not enough skin in the game for them. If they want to blow you off at the last minute you just have to with an expensive, last-minute back up plan. And they just forfeit some income they weren't really counting on anyway. I've been jerked around by hotels too, but not nearly as often.
I still use it though because it is much more reliable than a cab most places and usually cheaper and I don't have to worry about payment.
> It initially feels like this glorious free market, but ...
Based on the number of posts of former AirBnB users, sounds like the free market is working.
Maybe the failure here is in Airbnb's marketing of their services to the wrong crowd.
I felt like I was the ideal AirBnB user. I have low standards for where I sleep and can usually be flexible schedule-wise, and I also value low prices over most other factors. But I just can't afford last minute cancellations and people not living up to the expectations they set themselves. I'm pretty sure you won't find many people who are more open to what AirBnB could be than that...
I've stayed in lots more hotels and experienced fewer problems. The times I've had resulted in either a sincere apology or full refund (the last time for the 2 days stay rather than the one night I complained about).
I can see the advantage of AirBnB for a group of people who are willing to compromise in return for a cost saving but not much else.
This is almost the direct opposite of my own experience.
Got an AirBnB in Montreal Canada in December 2016. The photos were great. The owner was quick to respond. So I booked it and reached the place.
Bummer 1: No cable. ( But in the listing it was there) Bummer 2: No safety. The owner had converted an apartment into two, separated by a thin wall. The wall had come off and he had the gypsum wall leaning and cautioned me not to touch it.
Since it was for 2 days and in the middle of a heavy snowfall, I let it pass. Fast forward some hours, a couple of people checked into the other half of the apartment, started playing loud music, shouting and smoking. The smoke started coming into my half of the place because the wall was not really sealed.
Experience 2:
Rented a place which had a profile photo of a family. I thought great ! When I checked in, I felt it was some sort of "setup" just for the purpose of renting it out for AirBnB, I asked the owner where she lived. She said "nearby". I felt something fishy as there was no family ! The reviews even said there was a family (fake reviews ? ).
So after the owner left, I googled the address and to my surprise, I found that the address is under a rental agency. Next I found that the door lock is not working and internet is less than the speeds of dial up. I left the next day and disputed it on AirBnB.
AirBnB said, "Its legal for rental agencies to list on AirBnB". ( what was the photo of that family then ? ) Since AirBnB was not willing to refund and gave me a 25$ coupon, I disputed with AMEX and got all my money back.
That was my last & final stay using AirBnB. Deleted my AirBnB account after this incident.
To be fair with Hotels you also have to do your work and read the reviews.