Hacker News Reader

Comment by Judgmentality | Hacker News Reader

Man, the more I read stories like this about AirBnB the more I want them to fail. People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason. Beyond that though, what I despise is that AirBnB seems to reap all the profits and accept none of the blame. They fought to avoid paying taxes and whined when they lost, they refuse to take down listings when presented with evidence of them being illegal, they purposefully make complying with authorities difficult, they got their start by effectively breaking the terms of agreement on craigslist and spamming people like crazy to kickstart traffic to their site.

I love the idea of sharing homes. I just hate how AirBnB is doing it, and the more I read about them (obviously the media is writing articles to get clicks, so I'm sure it's somewhat biased) the more I think we'd be better off without them.

View on HN

> Man, the more I read stories like this about AirBnB the more I want them to fail. People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason.

Frankly, I feel the same about every single one of the prominent "sharing economy" / "gig economy" companies. Uber/Lyft and AirBnB just seem to be the worst of them because they're the most visible of the visible. All of them appear to delight in exploiting the fact that enforcement of codes and rules isn't (and can't be) 100% universal so it's a "go under the radar until caught" model.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get to live with the obnoxiousness with no effective way to push back. Uber/Lyft "drivers" seem to have zero recognition of traffic laws (stopping in a bus lane during rush hour is practically a given these days), AirBnB "hosts" look at property rental rules as an irritating nuisance that impedes their quick buck. Even food companies like DoorDash flout labor laws and "freshly-prepared meals to your door" companies seem to think that commercial food handling rules are just dumb.

I get that lots of people love having the conveniences of life available at the tap of an icon--I do, too, even though I flatly refuse to use any of those services above--but, damn, couldn't we do it while also being considerate of those around us?

> All of them appear to delight in exploiting the fact that enforcement of codes and rules isn't (and can't be) 100% universal so it's a "go under the radar until caught" model.

This is true, but in some ways I think it's been a good shock to the system. For example, I think taxi regulation is being rethought and that wouldn't have happened without Uber.

I'm interested to hear more about how Uber behaviour is inconsiderate. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the company itself - but the experience itself seems to be all round good.

In the U.K. the drivers need to be registered for private hire and pay the appropriate insurance. In my experience the drivers abide by the law, are friendly and have nice clean cars. The service itself is miles better than traditional minicabs or black cabs. And it's cheaper too.

As far as I can tell, it's just generally a better taxi service and nobody is getting hurt (though I welcome insights on where that's wrong).

Having discussed it with black cab drivers, the best they've come up with (other than the destruction of their market) is that the uber drivers register in London and then drive in the other parts of the country. Apparently that's bad somehow, but I'm not sure why.

> I'm interested to hear more about how Uber behaviour is inconsiderate.

Certainly, and I think I can sum up why you and I have different experiences in another quote:

> In the U.K.

Your government didn't bend to the "but they're just shaaaaaaring so being licensed is haaaaard" bullshit that many governments here did. (Austin, Texas tried to pull it off and the Legislature of the State of Texas smacked them, hard.)

I live in Seattle. The vast majority of Uber (and Lyft) drivers here are on the "UberX" platform so they're virtually unlicensed--except for a basic city permit and a regular driving license--and have no identifying markings except for a standard vehicle license plate. This makes complaining to any regulatory agency about them problematic and while their behavior in traffic is illegal, it is also difficult for traffic police to be everywhere to write the myriad of citations that could result.

Uber/Lyft drivers know this and the minuscule risk of getting caught is vastly outweighed by getting a crappy rating by picking up a passenger a few feet away in a loading zone versus right in the middle of the bus stop where the passenger has dropped the pickup pin.

That's just one of my huge heap of complaints about how the "ridesharing" drivers actually pilot their vehicles. Making a U-turn in the middle of traffic to pick up a fare that's just popped up on their screen is another. But it really gets my goat how they use bus lanes and bus stops as their own private pickup and drop off areas because that one person in that one car is stopping the 40 of us on the damn bus from getting where we need to go. And Uber/Lyft drivers are almost always the ones doing it. I've very rarely seen a liveried taxicab act like that.

Maybe taxicabs do actually drive as bad or worse as "ridesharing" drivers do. Maybe the don't-call-them-taxis are just more plentiful so they're more visible. I don't know for certain but I'm well and truly sick of it.

Just to add another pain point, in Orlando drivers hire out immigrants to drive for them. I've had many rides where the person driving speaks no English and doesn't match the profile pic despite the car plates matching and having the lyft/Uber app open with my details. Many complaints to Lyft and Uber and nothing has been done so far as I can tell. And as you'd expect those drivers don't obey the laws at all. Last driver I had ran every single red light and stop sign.

I had a similar experience in San Diego. Driver had only been in town 2 days; we had to give him directions (I was there for a conference and had never been to San Diego before!)

Cabs do this all the time, since the dawn of time

The same drivers for Uber are the same cabbies. It's all the same people, running the same tricks. Uber didn't disrupt anything, just moved the platform and added a new middleman.

Recently Uber will randomly select drivers to submit a picture before the app will let the go online. So it seems someone somewhere is trying now, shrug.

Try that bus lane blocking stud fin the uk and you'll find the bus has taken a picture of you, and a hefty fine will land on the door of the registered keeper of the car.

For some reason in London, black cabs (racist drivers with low standards, high fares, and cash only for tax evasion) have lobbied for their drivers to be included in the "public transport" group, meaning bus lanes are full of buses and rich businessmen going to meetings.

Thankfully, at least SF Muni has traffic enforcement cameras on the buses and trains and they issue tickets when folks are in the bus lane & bus stops.

I drive on London every day. Uber drivers are perpetually distracted. Either looking for a pickup or aimlessly meandering waiting for their next job. There are some serious negative externalities, much like the article.

I find the same thing with black cab drivers or Adison Lee. At least uber/adison lee don't pollute the bus lanes.

This probably isn't the sort of behavior you expected when you asked for examples but:

Uber and Lyft were required by a municipal ordinance of Austin to finger-print their drivers. They both objected to this regulation and so they got some local folks to promote a ballot issue that intended to free them from the regulation.

There were a lot of questionable things that happened along with this ballot measure like shady local "advocacy groups" and attempts to recall city council members who appeared to be critical of Uber, but my main issue was that they sent me literally 14 of the same exact mailer addressed to me in . This was in addition to their other mailers, which were also duplicated obscenely. Anyways, the ballot measure failed and Uber and Lyft decamped, but only after claiming they were "forced out of Austin."

They wasted $10,000,000 on all this, which could have finger-printed 200,000 drivers.

They seem like wasteful idiots who want to interfere with society to their own benefit. And that's not even me talking about their flouting of 'taxi regulations.'

I've had a couple of bad experiences with safety. Not many, but a few.

One was when a driver straight-up ran a red light. He had plenty of advance warning. It turned yellow when it was still off in the distance, and it had been red red for a few seconds when he went in. I made sure to file a complaint.

Another driver made a left turn from the rightmost lane of a six-lane road. She had plenty of warning: Google Maps had been telling her to make a left for a while, and I kept telling her "you'll want to get in the left lane". She ignored both me and the nav. That was a one-star ride.

I also had one bad experience with a driver who got furious at me for pointing out a No U-Turn sign to him. This one will need a map.

We were on a divided road (i.e., with a median, no jumping across), and our destination was on the other side of the road. The next intersection after our destination had a No U-Turn sign, and Google Maps instructed us to go on to the intersection after that and make the U-turn there. Driver decided he wanted to make a U-Turn at the intersection with the No U-Turn sign instead.

In case this is confusing, here's a map of what was going on

       | |      |N|
    ===| |======|O|==================
                      <-CAR
    ---| |------|U|------------------
                 T
    ===| |======|U|==========  ======
       | |      |R|       DESTINATION
       | |      |N|

While he was in the left lane with his blinker on, I kept telling him over and over that there was a No U-Turn sign and that what he was doing was illegal. Eventually, he relented, and for the rest of the ride, he started audibly huffing and puffing. He was utterly furious at me for not letting him make an illegal U-Turn.

Oh, and when he let me off, he parked in a handicap spot. I one-starred him, flagged him for Navigation, Safety, and Friendliness, and wrote the details of what he did; hopefully, someone at Lyft noticed.

I've actually seen a lot of drivers let me out in handicap spots. I always warn them, and they say they'll move out right away, but it makes me really nervous every time. I normally don't report or one-star people for that alone, but I made sure to do that in his case because of his huffing and puffing act. Oh, and he left me a really bad first impression when he first picked me up. He locked the front door and told me to get in the back. I'm a large person, and he had a dinky little Nissan Versa. No way am I fitting in the back of that rollerskate. He didn't unlock the front door until I told him I'd cancel the ride if he didn't let me in the front. It really pisses me off when drivers of econobox hoopties act like limo drivers. Dude, you own a Nissan Versa, not a Lincoln Town Car. Act like it.

(actually, I hate it when Uber/Lyft drivers in large sedans act like limo drivers too... as far as I'm concerned, getting out of the car to open the door for me is an automatic cancellation... I find it creepy, and I won't ride with someone who pulls that crap)

Edit: Oh, and I've also had a couple of drivers who were texting throughout the ride.

> Beyond that though, what I despise is that AirBnB seems to reap all the profits and accept none of the blame.

I dunno; it seems to me that in these cases, the people who are really to blame are the "tenants" who are actually breaking both laws and rental agreements.

I'm puzzled as to why the property owners aren't suing them to recover all the money they lost. I mean, yeah, lawsuits cost money, too, but when you're talking a $20k fine, I would imagine there's at least a good chance of recovering more than you pay...and it didn't sound like any of the mentioned owners were attempting to do anything to the bad-faith tenants.

I totally agree that AirBnB has some serious legal issues looming in its future in most if not all of the jurisdictions it operates in, but I honestly don't see these particular issues as being representative of them.

Because these tenants have no money. If they did, they'd likely be buying properties and listing them instead of doing these illegal sublets. The landlords in the area will likely drastically increase the rental deposit (unless it's limited by state or local law to some multiple of the monthly rent). That's the only real security against a tenant.

Exactly, the landlord will win in court but never collect from the tenant. The landlord should sue Airbnb directly in small claims court.

I'm puzzled as to why the property owners aren't suing them to recover all the money they lost. I mean, yeah, lawsuits cost money, too, but when you're talking a $20k fine, I would imagine there's at least a good chance of recovering more than you pay...and it didn't sound like any of the mentioned owners were attempting to do anything to the bad-faith tenants.

It sounds like you have never been a landlord. It's a five step process that takes at least two months just to evict someone in my landlord friendly state. I've heard it's worse in many other states. After that, it's possible to sue someone but that costs money and time and even after you do win it can take years to actually get your money and go through garnishment procedures once you track down their income. It's seldom worth the effort.

Yes most of the fault lies with AirBnb but being a distant landlord without a local property manager is crazy anyway. I sold my properties because the expense of getting a property manager or the hassle of managing it myself from across town wasn't worth it.

The lack of a property manager also struck me as crazy and I've never been a landlord. Plenty of rentals have gotten trashed and city fines accrued long before airbnb existed. Doesn't sound like this stuff happened overnight.

So, it seems that regulations governing the relationship between the landlord and tenants is the real problem here. If it was easier to recover money from the tenants, and kick them off the property, this would not be a problem.

Given a choice between protecting the rights of the tenants and protecting the rights of the landlord, I think we should be very careful about leaning on the side of the tenants and I'm saying that as a former landlord. The landlord may lose money but the tenant could be homeless and living in unsafe conditions if you veer too much in the landlord's favor.

As far as making it easier to recover money. Since it is just another civil case, it would take a complete overhaul of civil court.

Here's the deal: Tenants have rights because it's extremely easy for slumlords to take advantage of tenants - the power is completely in the landlord's hands without regulations. Poor tenant protections often leads to very serious negative externalities to society as a whole. History is filled with examples.

Unfortunately, tenants do take advantage of landlord-tenant laws sometimes, and that is terrible. Savvy swindlers can use the system to their advantage.

Being hard to recover money from individuals has absolutely nothing to do with landlord-tenant law and everything to do with the fact most individual people don't have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around to pay legal judgements. You'd have these sorts of issues anytime you sue someone else for anything. Best case scenario is that the person who you are suing has the proper liability insurance that will pay the judgement for them. (Liability is included with homeowners insurance and renters insurance but doesn't usually cover intentional actions)

I'm sure many of them will try to sue later on but that's not an overnight process, it can take years for a lawsuit to make it's way through court. Plus the property owners don't even fully know what their full losses are yet, it's way too soon, the dust hasn't settled. $20,000 is too much for small claims court so it's going to be a big production. Furthermore, these scumbags are the type of people to say "LOL" to a legal judgement instead of paying it. That means more time in court to get wage and bank account garnishments (if they are even working). If they don't have the $20,000+ or a well paying job or assets then the judgement is worth as much as the paper it is written on, you can't get blood from a stone. If you get a wage garnishment you may collect your $20,000 in 10 years if you're lucky.

(Ignoring the fact it's a several months process to even evict a tenant in many states in the first place.)

You can't let AirBnB off the hook here, they have the moral, if not legal, responsibility to prevent the most egregious abuses of their platform.

People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason

I love this quote:

Which is funnier: tech bros innovating their way to public transit, or bitcoin folks slowly reinventing financial regulation?

AirBnB, of course, is on a similar path.

I'm with you though, Uber, AirBnB, both seem to be good new age examples of the business strategy privatize the gains, socialize the risk/losses. Usually the company passes the taxpayer the bill; here, instead, a new patsy has been found.

Yep. Doing this five meters away from my front door, where my house and neighbors share a hallway. The carpet outside is covered in barbecue oil from a guest lugging a barbecue to the rooftop. We've had multiple drunk people try and break into the house. We've had a rooftop party with a couple of hundred teenagers. The owner is absentee and doesn't care, Airbnb won't even help you find the listing when you know the address (exactly like the article).

Ultimately it's our time and the police's time that handled things (and the taxpayer), while Airbnb reap the profits.

Can't report to your HOA or other management org?

The regulation is what is screwing the owner in this case. It's a simple ban on short term renting. If it didn't exist then it would just be a civil lease agreement violation and far less painful.

AirBnB went wrong in this case because they don't have a good property owner support channel to remove bad properties like this.

At first blush, allowing the owner to exclude addresses from rental seems reasonable. But if an airbnb host is willing to violate their lease, why isn't that person willing to fake ownership? How far should airbnb be required to go to verify ownership, and what happens when ownership changes?

To be honest, these people sound like shitty, lazy landlords who deserve their bad tenants. They

1 - didn't do a reference check;

2 - didn't swing by occasionally (even every couple months) to verify the condition of their property;

3 - were renting property out and hadn't bothered to provide neighbors their contact info in case of problems;

4 - quite possibly (this is highly variable / city by city) hadn't notified the city they were renting these units, or the city would have sent the fines to them rather than (presumably) to the tenants.

(I say this as a landlord). They feel they are entitled to take out a mortgage then collect checks without any work. It isn't that easy...

> How far should airbnb be required to go to verify ownership, and what happens when ownership changes?

Isn't this a matter of public record? Tons of solutions for verifying identity exist and are used in other industries.

Property ownership is public information that can be verified with the town.

Furthermore, I didn't see any reason to jump to such conclusions given in the article. These people seem like professional swindlers so they could have presented false documents when signing the lease.

Most false documents can generally be detected by reference checks, particularly if it includes a credit check. The landlords in the article did not sound like they'd bothered.

Property ownership is not trivial to check: not only does the registrar vary by location, with varying availabilities of information, but who is to say that person X asking airbnb to do / not do something is the X on the title? Further, lots of rental property is owned by a LLC/trust/corporation. Of course you can determine who is authorized to speak for the aforementioned LLC, but it's not an api request away.

Yes it is an API lookup to verify the LLC's authorized persons, for Florida: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ByName

These people sound like professional swindlers, you can buy someone's identity on the darknet for a couple hundred dollars at the most. They almost certainly filled out the rental application using someone else's information. That was implied in TFA.

Property ownership is very trivial to check. Calling city/town hall when a property is listed is not an unreasonable task for a multi-million dollar company, more like the bare minimum due diligence. If they can manage to send out professional photographers they can manage basic ownership verification.

You skipped entirely over trusts. Property managers are regularly not named members of an LLC. To wit, I'm a manager of an apartment building that I (quite unfortunately) don't have any ownership interest in. Building a state-by-state, or county-by-county lookup system; verifying person X is authorized to make decisions for a property; then detecting updates is decidedly non-trivial. You can skip googling since I already know the answer: there's very limited information available in many states on corporations. See eg Delaware. Other states don't require updates, or require updates only on very long periods. Many small LLCs simply skip even required annual updates. There's also complications such as the address used by the building and even the postal service is quite possibly not the recorded address. In 2015, [1] claims there were 550k property listings in the US alone. None of this can't be done, but trivial it isn't. I happen to know much of this because I used to work on address information.

[1] http://blog.airdna.co/2015-in-review-airbnb-data-for-the-usa...

> (I say this as a landlord). They feel they are entitled to take out a mortgage then collect checks without any work. It isn't that easy...

(I say this a as a tenant). How is that any different than taking out a lease and then collecting checks without any work or risk?

What does this even mean?

And the tenants do have quite a bit of risk here: a fine of $20k is certainly worth pursuing through the courts. So also significant property damage. They seem to be banking (and to be fair, so far it's a good bet) on landlords being too lazy.

> People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason.

Just quoted this part because it's so important. Most (but not 100%) of regulation complaints are of the "waah waah" sort.

"If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested."

~ Thomas Wolfe

I agree that there is usually a "good reason" behind many regulations. The issue is that the law applies with unbending force. Regulations would be both less necessary and less onerous if we could conceive of a more flexible, fluid legal system. It's not necessarily a valid implicit assumption that the regulations that apply to professional hoteliers should be applicable to individuals taking on short-term boarders.

Justice is very slow and very expensive under our current model. I understand that there are a lot of complex mostly-good historical reasons why things became that way. But we need more legal fluidity and better legal accessibility.

How come Airbnb doesn't require proof of ownership? I mean, few rental contracts even allow subletting without owner approval.

>they got their start by effectively breaking the terms of agreement on craigslist and spamming people like crazy to kickstart traffic to their site.

startup-speak: "growth hacking"

> People hate regulations until they get screwed, and suddenly they understand that sometimes regulations exist for a reason.

In this specific case, it’s clear that this a) happened in spite of regulations, and b) is much more difficult to clean up due to regulations (specifically over-reaching tenant protections).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com