Hacker News Reader

Comment by cletus | Hacker News Reader

A common quote on HN (and one that I firmly believe in) is:

> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

This so applies to AirBnB. It's not salary per se but those that benefit by renting out units or those for whom this has saved them money I've found typically get so defensive about AirBnB to the point of calling detractors NIMBYists and the like.

I've long thought that AirBnB allows people to profit off something that others around them bear the negative externalities from but I think it's even worse than I would've pegged it. Clear negatives:

1. Reduces housing supply;

2. Creates safety problems;

3. Creates nuisance problems; and

4. Brings temporary residents into neighbourhoods that have no tie to that neighbourhood.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with people renting out rooms or an ADU on their property. Most cities don't either.

But AirBnB is clearly used to create illegal hotels and that's the problem.

View on HN

> But AirBnB is clearly used to create illegal hotels and that's the problem.

The solution is increased enforcement of the laws that make these illegal.

The incentives aren't difficult: Create an anonymous tip line to report illegal AirBnB operations that violate zoning regulations. Have submitters provide the street address and URL of the AirBnB to make it easy. The person operating the AirBnB (or owner of the house) gets fined. The person submitting the tip about an illegal AirBnB receives 25% of the fine.

It wouldn't take long for illegal AirBnBs to close up shop when they realize there are negative repercussions for what they're doing. Keep it anonymous to avoid retribution.

I could even see bargain hunters looking for illegal AirBnBs to stay in, then reporting their hosts to collect their share of the resulting fine to recover some of the cost. The incentives are deeply stacked against the illegal AirBnB operators in this scenario.

Of course, this only works in areas where it's illegal to run temporary rentals. I expect we'll see more of those regulations as the problems with short-term AirBnBs in residential areas become more apparent.

> The solution is increased enforcement of the laws that make these illegal.

Great idea. Let's fine AirBnB $50,000 per unit per year they knowingly rent out in NYC where they know such things are illegal.

Don't go after the users (those using AirBnB) or the street dealers (those listing individual units). Go after the cartel that knowingly engages in illegal activity on a massive scale.

That'll sort out the problem real quick.

Yeah, I think people have a very binary view of "criminal enterprises" vs "corporations", like they can only be people who dress in pin-stripe suits and carry tommy guns and say "lookee here, see" a lot, but a tech company can be a criminal enterprise just as much as anything else. Any company that makes money by violating the law, or encouraging it's habitual violation, is a criminal enterprise by definition (at least by the colloquial definition), even if a top boss keeps his "nose clean". Just like with any other criminal enterprise, going after the top is going to be the most effective. I hope with more research like this, maybe attitudes will change.

yah, and i’ll just point out again[0] that firms try to get big to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. we need regulations that aim to right-size organizations, rather than the grow-at-all-costs we have now.

[0]: a longer treatment i just posted as it relates to uber/lyft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27914112

A criminal is a person with predatory instincts without sufficient capital to form a corporation.

Howard Scott

> A criminal is a person with predatory instincts without sufficient capital to form a corporation.

That definition is much too kind to corporations.

Or to pay several retainers!

Tell one lawyer specifically what you will do, or did, and let them tell you what to do but that they cant represent you anymore, fire them. Go to the second lawyer and play dumb but using the rubric provided by the first lawyer.

You mean like Uber? They violated… and people would be pissed to see them go. So companies hope to be the rule breaker that gets too big to fail.

People like Uber because it's cheaper than taxis but I'm hearing complaints that prices are up. Seems the reason it's cheaper than taxis is Uber is subsidizing with investor money and they shifted costs to the drivers, many who are realizing it's not worth it. Seems to me Uber has always been unsustainable (they're billions in the red, spending to capture market share) but they were hoping to have self driving cars to eliminate drivers by now.

I think people take Uber because the price is known in advance. Taxis were considered the biggest theft profession of the world (excluding politicians) because they relied on extremely nasty techniques, such as threats, misconfiguring the counter, letting it run between clients, in Mexico abducting people as part of racket networks, using the wrong route, pretending there is a station charge and, last but not least, using law and local police against the customer. It’s sad that Uber has lower prices, because I would have liked to see a real match, I think everyone is happy to see taxis go bankrupt and another system with a reputation framework.

I hated taxis long before Uber showed up.

>Seems to me Uber has always been unsustainable (they're billions in the red, spending to capture market share) but they were hoping to have self driving cars to eliminate drivers by now.

I'm starting to think it is a rational strategy. Grow at a loss during a recession and make profits during the coming boom. Of course, the fact that they are still growing at a loss implies that we aren't out of the recession yet.

Uber seems to get a pass because taxi services were so utterly terrible and had no incentive to get better.

Yeah, though unfortunately some companies are big enough now to change the laws they violate [1]

[1] https://abc7.com/22-california-prop-2020-ca-what-is/7585005/

> The person submitting the tip about an illegal AirBnB receives 25% of the fine.

I feel like the whole "rat on your neighbors for money" thing has a lot of negative unintended consequences.

But it’s not ratting on your neighbors. They’re not your neighbors anymore when they moved away from your neighborhood and rented their place out to people from outside your neighborhood who are not going to stay long enough to be your neighbors either. You no longer have neighbors in that home.

In that case, I suppose yes the neighbors are gone. At the same time, what if they rent out their apartment only for two months and then they're back? Maybe that can be solved by waiting a month or so with complaining, combined with asking them about it

> I feel like the whole "rat on your neighbors for money" thing has a lot of negative unintended consequences.

1) If they are running an AirBnB, they're not your neighbor. They just own (or rent) property close to you.

2) There are a lot of negative unintended consequences to you because the unit was rented out. Why should you be expected to bear those costs and silently suffer when you can end it?

It absolutely would. But who's to say it was your neighbor instead of a random person in the city who's looking for a quick buck and knows AirB&B is illegal in the city?

This good samaritan compensation model works well in New York to catch illicitly idling commercial vehicles. How are illicit short term rentals significantly different?

Negative unintended consequences to the illegal AirBnB on my street was having my car shot up. Some of the bullets also hit the neighbors car parked in front of my bedroom window.

You can already do this with the IRS and receive 15% to 30% of what is owed[1].

[1] https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-office

Yeah I imagine it could be the new swatting. Don't like your neighbors (as in, your actual neighbors, who aren't running an illegal hotel)? Anonymously report that there's an AirBnB in their property, and watch as the cops show up and tell your neighbors to pack their bags and find a real hotel.

How would your thing even work? You'd have to provide an AirBNB link plus legal tenants have papers.

You set up a fake listing with real outdoor photos and stock indoor photos.

Many legal tenants don't have their paperwork on-hand, stuff like deeds is stored in safe-deposit boxes where it's not readily accessible to show police who spontaneously arrive to kick you out.

Doesn't AirBnB require identity verification to use the platform as a letter, let alone to list a property?

Maybe you can pay a friend to borrow his identity?

There is a lack of funding for enforcement. Where I am, the AirBnB market is huge, has led to unprecedented house price growth, and there were already rules requiring short-stay properties to be licensed...85% of properties on AirBnb aren't licensed, and department is a handful of people that are somehow meant to monitor tens of thousands of properties. I have heard of councils employing people to check but that means: looking at properties online, going to the area, trying to work out where they are, finding out where the property owner is (AirBnb have said they will refuse to comply with any requests from local govt).

The rules have been made more solid now. They are introducing a very punitive fine and some areas can have no short-term rentals but AirBnb has thrived because they exploited regulation. Local govt has to be in control (although where I am, the reason they didn't introduce anything even stricter is because the tourist economy is so large...so...it is tricky when there is money coming in).

NYC has that tip line: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/stay-in-the-kno...

tl;dr: Don't use it, it is worthless.

I called once after an AirBNBer tried to kick down my door at 3AM because he was on the wrong floor. Same guy projectile vomited red wine and bile all over the hallway as he stumbled away before falling asleep in the stairwell.

Anyways, so I called the tip line, and they asked me "When do they show up?". I said I don't know, these people are strangers and I don't know their schedule. I was told to call back when I see them entering the building. So I did that when I saw them entering the building, and I was told "Thank you, we will send someone around shortly". But there were 90 units in my building...how would they know where to look or who to talk to? I was told "We'll talk to management". And then I asked them when they will be here, and they said "Within 6 hours, or possible tomorrow". Why it was so important that I only call them when I physically see someone entering the building if they are going to wait 24 hours to do anything - I do not know.

I'm fairly convinced the NYC tip line is just for show and no one really cares in NYC about stopping illegal short term rentals.

But who should pay for the increased enforcement?

> anonymous tip line

Run by Airbnb? Seems reasonable.

Ideally the fines would pay for the program, but how expensive is it really to have an anonymous phone tip line, and reuse existing infrastructure to fine or ticket a property owner?

> how expensive is it really

The answer, as with all govtech, is “a lot more than it should be.” Governments, especially local governments, have no internal technology competence, and have to rely on vendors and contractors for absolutely everything.

It's also a 2-part cost.

To run a tip-line and collect tips: probably very little.

To act on that information, so you're able to identify and punish violators, without which there's no point in having a tip line: looooooots more.

You just have to make the fine enough that it covers the cost of defending it against the people that do contest it.

I haven't seen any evidence that governments, local or otherwise, spend "a lot more than it should [cost]." They are (correctly) unable to subsidize the cost of development by selling data, which in some cases means they cannot use certain preexisting libraries. But many groups have to rely on vendors and contractors for their technical needs. Their costs should be compared to other groups outsourcing their needs.

> They are (correctly) unable to subsidize the cost of development by selling data, which in some cases means they cannot use certain preexisting libraries.

This is not what raises the cost of development. It’s not having any in-house knowledge of software development or even how to manage software development contracts effectively. Most companies that require a lot of software end up building development organizations, because they recognize that paying someone else to do it is more expensive long-term. That’s not an option available to most governments.

It’s possible that this is just an inherent effect of outsourcing but even if it is, it ends up being too inefficient to justify.

Do you have any evidence that it is "too inefficient"? Because you keep asserting it and I just don't believe you.

I'm not sure why there needs to be a lot of tech involved for a phone line for people to call in tips.

I mean you can have Joe writing it down on a piece of paper, sure. But when it gets to a computer, costs start coming up. It depends on how the software works but the products used tend to be a) ancient and b) often either not configurable enough to support new use cases or so complicated that you have to submit a change request to the vendor to do it for you.

Idk I imagined an excel spreadsheet, which hits the middle ground between paper and some complex govtech application. If it is successful and fines/funding rolls in then maybe upgrade

And the cost for an enforcement agent/department to investigate. And each agent's salary, benefits, and pension.

In many cities, the police don't even respond to auto/bike burglaries -- they're very minimally staffed.

Most cities have ample police force them being understaffed is somewhat of a bullshit narrative.

For example NYPD has 36000 ifficers for 8.4M residents or 1 for every 230 people. In Chicago it's 225. In Seattle it's over 500 but they could probably afford more if they weren't paying individual officers up to 400k including non electronically tracked probably fraudulent overtime.

"Increased enforcement" is the new "self policing". Clap louder, Tinkerbell is sure to fly.

If Airbnb is violating local laws it seems like a simple subpoena would yield the necessary information.

This is almost impossible to enforce. Depts. of Buildings are notoriously slow if the issue is not a clear and present safety hazard. By the time they get out there, the visitor will be long gone.

They have to spend resources on the investigation, and build a pile of evidence. You think someone is gonna stake out every suspected violator for days on end?

> They have to spend resources on the investigation, and build a pile of evidence. You think someone is gonna stake out every suspected violator for days on end?

The property is listed on AirBnB.com, where you get the address and the name of the person operating the AirBnB.

They don't need an elaborate sting operation. They just take the link, test book it through the website, confirm the address and name of the operator from the booking, and they have all the evidence they need. Hit up AirBnB for a refund (illegal rental) and it doesn't even cost them anything. Hour or two of work at most.

> The property is listed on AirBnB.com, where you get the address and the name of the person operating the AirBnB.

Owners play a shell game and will have property managers list their properties under their names or their employees' names, along with fake addresses that are only revealed via messages after booking.

Renting a space at an address and sending your renters to a separate address is a big no-no with Airbnb terms. Easy to detect as Airbnb sends mail to check and confirm where you live.

And Airbnb could not caution that game, they would get sued for falsified contracts.

Wrong! (unless they changed policy) It happened to me. AirBnB claimed it was policy to let the listing on AirBnB show the wrong location.

https://blog.greggman.com/blog/yet-more-airbnb-issues/

Sounds like a nice theory, but I haven't stayed in an AirBnb in a major city where that wasn't the case.

If they did this right it could be more lucrative for lazy revenue seeking cops than hiding behind overpasses waiting for speeders.

I still can't tell which is happening:

1. You're trolling us with masterfully-ported prohibition-era enforcement mechanisms 2. You consider yourself a prohibitionist (of alcohol, drugs, or airbnb) and are advocating for prohibition-style responses to AirBnB. 3. You don't consider yourself a prohibitionist, and don't see how your opposition to AirBnB (and recommended enforcement mechanisms) is very similar to prohibitionists opposition to alcohol sales.

Which one sounds closest? Would you propose a 4th option?

Local authorities do licence checks on pubs and bars at the moment. If there was someone illegally running a pub out of their own house it would definitely be cracked down on in this way — does that mean that we currently have "prohibition-era enforcement" on alcohol too?

Yep. It's prohibition-lite, but still a holdover from that era.

Prohibitionist? Enforcing hotel regulations and zoning is not prohibiting hotels.

Unless the zoning prohibits hotels.

They send a subpoena to ABNB and the company responds or people fo fo jail.

So, like swatting, but less deadly, and with no repercussions?

I think criminalising what you do to with your own property is slippery slope to no property ownership.

We already have plenty of laws to regulate what you can do within your own property so it doesn't inconvenience your neighbours — burning rubbish out your back garden, playing loud music in the middle of the night, putting up structures that block daylight coming into their property etc. etc.

I think having zoning laws that say hotels aren't allowed in "this area" but they are allowed in "that area" isn't unreasonable. (Most people have no problems with a long-term resident going away for a weekend and letting their house on AirBnB, it's when you turn a property in a residential neighbourhood into a permanent short-term let that's the issue.)

There are very few slippery slopes and too much fear about them.

Property ownership, especially real estate, is limited in many ways. Try depositing asbestos in your condo and see how far you get.

Prohibition has already been tried with alcohol and drugs. Lets leave it in the past.

Why single out AirBnB? Why not go after Uber, Lyft and others running illegal taxis?

For all the talk of privilege lately, it takes a whole other level to blatantly break the law en masse under the guise of "disruption".

This is a strawman argument and totally different.

They aren't "illegal taxies" They've been allowed by the local governments and are taxed. Austin got them all to leave at one point by requiring stricter standards of vetting drivers.

I think AirBnB, Uber and Lyft should all be targeted. Uber and Lyft's externalities increase traffic. AirBnB's drive up everyone's rent. Clearly AirBnB's is worse.

The question isn't "legal or not". It's how badly does the illegal act impact society. Same reason we prioritize arresting drunk drivers over red light runners.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and treat this like a genuine question. I say this because this argument has become so prominent in recent years as a means of defending the indefensible. It's often referred to as "butwhataboutism".

There are a few variations of this. For example:

- Arguing against legislation because it leaves some problems unsolved. This applies to literally all legislation and an improvement is typically better than nothing. The problem is that those making these arguments typically know this and don't want any change;

- Why prosecute person or company for X when some other person or company does something vaguely similar? Well is there sufficient evidence for the prosecution to proceed? If yes then the "but what about X" argument is simply being used as a means to stop a prosecution where there's a vested interest. Because otherwise it's like saying "because this person over here wasn't charged with murder then we shouldn't charge anyone with murder".

I really hope that people develop the critical skills to see through this for what it is: a means of manipulating people. So the next time someone tries this stop and ask yourself why they're bringing up a new topic rather than addressing the existing one. Who are they trying to manipulate and why?

"Illegal Hotels"

This always makes me laugh. A lot of hotel regulation was written with fire safety in mind (large building with a lot of small rooms in it and a high number of occupants). But AirBnBs... are just regular apartments so they don't break the fire safety rules (if the appartment is zoned for two occupants, really you aren't breaking any laws by housing two guests).

The rest is simply NIMBY and cities trying to fleece tourists really. Or bureaucrats trying to justify the red tape and regulation that keeps them employed.

EDIT: Wow, I see the downvotes yet no explanations!

Allowing landlords to buy up housing supply to rent by the day drives up prices for the 90% who need a house to live in them not profit from them. It's disadvagous for society to allow it. Society doesn't have to let you live your life at everyone else's expense. If I had to guess the down votes are either for lack of awareness, facile dismissal, supreme self confidence not matched by good grasp of the topic or the often unpopular complaining about down votes.

The number one rule of down vote club is don't talk about down vote club.

And the price to rent plumets when there is a glut of houses up for rent (via AirBNB or not). That this doesn't happen speaks more to the lack of supply than anything else.

Govenments have failed their constituents by not provisioning adequate land for new housing, and not buying up abandonned or severely run-down areas to redevelop.

Our populations have expanded greatly in the last decades, yet housing supply has not kept up at all!

> Allowing landlords to buy up housing supply to rent by the day drives up prices for the 90% who need a house to live in them not profit from them

Notice how the conversation is always about a limited supply; never about how the cities could remove barriers for larger, denser constructions. Wonder why that is.

We should fix the other problems but if we fail to or in the meantime we ought to prevent the existing problems from being exacerbated by Airbnb.

Maybe because not everyone is interested in living like an animal in crowded apartments?

A lot of people like living in dense urban places. I wouldn't say they like living like animals.

Twice I've booked airbnb's in buildings where it was not allowed, and I didn't find out until picking up the keys. It's incredibly frustrating (one of building had concierge who gave us hard time). Next time, I'll just go with a traditional hotel to avoid the stress.

Both times, I saw other groups of people with luggage coming in and out. So it likely was impacting multiple units in both buildings.

In fairness, the stress shouldn't be yours to sweat. If someone loses their rental to anti short-term leasing rules, that's really on the renter who's subletting it out to you via Airbnb.

It’s stressful to know you’re unwelcome

Depends whether it happens literally during the middle of your stay, as I have experienced.

A landlord evicted you mid-stay without warning? That sounds extreme, and I'm having a hard time finding others who've experienced the same online (all of what I'm finding is around people being kicked out for parties). Do you have anything I can reference?

Asking because I'd feel like the burden in just about all cases is on the landlord to put everything in motion to evict a tenant (whether it be an airbnb user or the tenant subletting via airbnb), but I'm not an attorney.

A building did, yes. It required fob access and was clearly being sublet against the contract. The fobs stopped working, and there was no remedy. This was in 2014 in New York City, I forget the precise building though.

Report em it's not illegal to stay at an illegal hotel.

> 4. Brings temporary residents into neighbourhoods that have no tie to that neighbourhood.

You're completely missing the real problem with this.

It's not just that short-term rentals bring in transients, keeping the housing unit available for short-term rentals displaces long-term residents who would have ties with the neighborhood, and in the best case of owner-occupied not just ties, but pride in ownership and a vested interest in maintaining both good relationships with the neighborhood and good working order of their property.

> You're completely missing the real problem with this. It's not just that short-term rentals bring in transients, keeping the housing unit available for short-term rentals displaces long-term residents who would have ties with the neighborhood, and in the best case of owner-occupied not just ties, but pride in ownership and a vested interest in maintaining both good relationships with the neighborhood and good working order of their property.

Didn't they cover that with item #1: "1. Reduces housing supply"? I don't think they missed it.

This is a really important point that you’ve called out. All of those Airbnbs in your neighborhood are preventing the formation of new communal relationships.

>I've long thought that AirBnB allows people to profit off something that others around them bear the negative externalities from

The more you think about it the more you begin to realise that this applies to almost everything you can think of. Our economic system is just bad at properly allocating rewards and value.

Generally, I think that shit rolls down hill and harms those without more often. Which is why I think this airbnb case is so interesting as it inverts the shit rolling direction in some cases. Those that are being disrupted and impacted in this case are those with houses and property. Silicon valley is almost disrupting silicon valley as equally as everyone else for once.

I have 100% issue with people turning their properties in SF into airbnb hotels. You're just skirting the fucking law at that point.

The area was zoned for -HOUSING- not a hotel.

I've used airbnb a lot in the past, but now that regulators have gotten a hold of it; it's basically a barely cheaper hotel with a lot more ??? on whether or not the place is good and the hosts live up to their reviews.

> It's not salary per se but those that benefit by renting out units or those for whom this has saved them money I've found typically get so defensive about AirBnB to the point of calling detractors NIMBYists and the like.

Isn't the other side of the argument also concerned with housing prices and money?

> To be clear, I don't have a problem with people renting out rooms or an ADU on their property.

What do you see as the differences between airbnb and this? The line between the two seems a little blurry to me and it seems odd to me that someone could be completely fine with one but completely against the other.

> What do you see as the differences between airbnb and this?

Not OP, but I share a similar view. If you're renting out a room of an ADU, you're still occupying the property and using it as housing yourself. The whole difference is that the sole use of the property is not taking it off the long term rental/buying market. With spare rooms/ADUs, that's not the purpose of the property, whereas with renting out a whole house it is.

I agree with all this.

I'll further add that the landlord being there means they can't simply foist loud, unruly or unsafe temporary residents on an area where he or she does not have any skin in the game. That is, they have to suffer the consequences too. This invariably will lead to less negative externalities.

But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost before being simply an investment vehicle for a foreign pension fund (for example).

That would mean that in NYC, for example, you get charged much higher property tax if you yourself are not a NYC resident (or possibly NYS resident).

> But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost

It's so weird to me to think that this isn't considered the default view. I 100% agree with it, and think it should be the obvious view, but it's clear there's many who do disagree.

It is the default view. The problem is that our tax structures and zoning regulations incentivize this behavior. We need a land value tax to really put an end to it, and get rid of the laws that stop housing supply from meeting demand in cities across the US.

Yea, I think future residents should be allowed to join a city without being penalized. The artificially constrained housing supply and NIMBY-ism seems very unamerican to me.

In some ways it’s very American, it’s just the side of America that we’re not proud of. Property owners benefit from the status quo of housing scarcity, and they are the most powerful bloc in local politics.

Yea, very true.. there usually seems to be a strong resistance to change around giving others an opportunity to chase the american dream that is mirrored pretty well with artificially constrained housing supply/nimbyism. There is always that contingent of the population that wants to close the door behind them to prevent others from attaining what they have already reached. At least we always seem to have that opposite view point to oppose them.

Don't some listings on airbnb do the exact same thing? Would those be ok from airbnb if they stopped the other types? Is the only difference having a landlord on site?

I absolutely would be more accepting of it if they only allowed ones where the landlord was on-site, yes.

In Denver the law is that a person can only AirBnb a property that is their primary residence. If you have an ADU or want to rent a room you can do that full time. We rent our place when we travel..

It seems like a good compromise to me.

I would agree with that, and then fine AirBnB itself whenever anyone breaks the rules. That'll get them to take it seriously as well. I definitely see nothing wrong with you renting out your house while gone on vacation. The issue I have is when people buy a house and take it off the market to rent it out to short term leasers.

The blurry line you are referencing is actually quite clear legally: is the accommodation short-term or not? (defined by the regulatory environment)

Wherein Airbnb stays are usually short-term and renting out an ADU is usually longer term

The person I was replying to enumerated a list of reasons for airbnb being bad. The reasons he gave seem like there could be a good amount of overlap between non-airbnb rentals and airbnb rentals.

The law is just the current rules that are defined for a given jurisdiction. I don't think they codify the reasoning behind why the law was enacted, what it was looking to prevent, or how it hoped to achieve that. The reasoning behind why these laws were enacted could range from genuine concern for safety to nymby-ish "because I want my house to appreciate in value more".

> 4. Brings temporary residents into neighbourhoods that have no tie to that neighbourhood.

Where I live we call this "tourism"

Who wants tourists in their building? And, seriously, unless you are in the hospitality industry then why would you want them around at all? And if you are, you probably ant tourists that stay in hotels and eat in restaurants, not in a little apartment.

Was going to make a similar comment. Don't see how this is being viewed as a negative.

Tourists aren't a negative per se. Tourists staying in illegal hotels in areas and buildings not designed for such in a way that sometimes belies their total lack of having to deal with any of the consequences... that's something else.

Rowdy parties, property damage (including common areas), harassment and nuisance, more serious violence and even cases of running a meth lab... that's something else.

A rotating gallery of total strangers out to have fun every day (including party), with absolutely no care for repercussions since they're only temporarily there, I wonder what could go wrong for locals?!

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theo...

Exactly. The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go. I wonder if enough AirBnB in the area could actually drive property cost down, because nobody would like to live there long term and then essentially wiping off all the profits people made by renting out. In the end only the AirBnB would really profit. It's a business model clearly bases on a loophole and should be closed. If someone wants to run a bed and breakfast they should get a suitable commercial property.

> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go.

One of the major "lessons" of the famous book Rich Dad, Poor Dad was that wise wealthy people view housing as an asset and investment, whereas poor and middle class people merely view it as an expense. This thinking is now deeply ingrained in our culture.

Which is crazy. Wealthy people can afford to view housing as an asset because they are wealthy. Poor people can't afford property because they are poor. That's like saying feudal lords were wise for viewing grain as an asset and not an expense. Wild.

Clearly you need to play more civilization builder games. Grain is the most important asset, without it you can neither feed your people nor sell the excess to your starving neighbors for sweet gold coins.

Games where you role-play as a feudal lord? You're either making his point for him, or missing it.

I read that book a very long time ago and don't remember the part you reference, but from the perspective of someone who wants to live in a house, that house should be considered a liability, not an asset/investment.

But sure, owning housing that you don't intend to live in (and intend to rent out, or renovate and sell) is an investment.

The problem (at least in the US) is that everyone (of any economic means) seems to think of their primary home as an investment, which is in part why our housing market is so distorted. Everyone believes they're entitled to sell their house for significantly more than they paid for it, which is weird: land may increase in value for a variety of reasons, but houses just get older and crappier over time, and should only drop in value (with some bumps back up for major renovations).

I mean, it is an investment. However the success of that investment basically means depriving future generations of a home, which they are fine with doing, clearly.

> The whole concept of residential property as an investment must go.

Well, not this exactly. I mean when you rent a property, you're renting it from someone else who owns it. That's what residential property is. So there's really only three broad alternatives here:

1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale;

2. They're owned privately. This could be by individuals or a corporation or a cooperative of some sort; or

3. There is no rental market.

Now as I mentioned in another comment: I do support not having unfettered use of residential property as an investment vehicle but you also need private ownership.

Personally I think a good start would be that the beneficial owner of any property is a resident of that city or state and if they're not, they get charged _much_ higher property tax.

You'll note I said "beneficial owner" there too. You want to hide behind an LLC or corporation to own your property without declaring your ownership? Fine. Pay for that privilege.

Cities should be by and for the residents in them, not hedge funds.

There are a couple of corner cases worth mentioning:

1. Rental buildings (ie not condos) should probably be treated differently than, say, individual units; and

2. I firmly believe that every mobile home park in the country should be able to forcibly purchase the land they're on as a cooperative from the current owner at fair market value. Hedge funds buying up the land mobile homes are on is really a disgusting form of capitalism, preying on some of the most vulnerable.

>1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale;

Not me! I've heard great things about living in Vienna where about 25% of housing is government owned.

Have you heard of Grenfell Tower?

Have you heard of [Insert private housing unit that failed catastrophically]? Anecdotes are not data.

Have you heard of Champlain Towers South?

> 1. It's owned by governments at some level. I think we can all agree this would largely be a disaster at any sort of scale;

Henry George enters the chat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

There's a reasonable philosophical case that land ownership is a very odd concept, probably wrong at some fundamental level -- people may feel a sense of possessiveness over a place, but most territory isn't a fruit of anyone's labors and attempts to base claims on "improvements" run afoul of the problem that (a) what constitutes and improvement is fairly subjective and (b) really not a matter of the underlying territory claim anyway. And in some sense, having land as property at all is married to the idea of a social order which can assign its disposition, which is close enough to the idea of property itself that it starts to become clear that all property is at some level also government property.

Now, whether it's practical to treat it that way is a different question, but a system where people own and trade in leases that they pay to the state as a tax is also... pretty similar to existing property tax + private leases, it's just that a lot of the private leases would essentially become a public revenue source. And it gets especially interesting if you try to envision an economic system where that's the primary tax.

Personally, I think it could work at least as well as the current system, but the transition might be politically intractable, and it's not a hill I care to die on, so...

Most land is to some level owned by the government, yes. You have to pay a lease in the form of property tax and the government has the final say in what is done with it, as long as they compensate you for it (penalty for breaking the lease).

Well, you could include Craigslist in that, everything under the sun. AirBnb/VRBO/Boooking.com all have their use.

The problem is when people rent/sublet their apt. in buildings that don't allow it, and cause nuisance to all.

Buildings should be able to opt out, and airbnb should respect it, and ban users that misuse it. But, i bet, in the name of profit, things get overlooked.

Anyways, if Airbnb is banned in a city, most of these apt will end up in VRBO/Booking.com/Craigslist, etc... etc... so it doesn't solve much. So, you have to ban all, and not just one. Is that realistic?

As always, it’s an issue of reach. AirBnB is the place to book non-hotel accommodations. Anyone who wants to can put their room or flat on there, and everyone who wants to find one knows where to look.

So is the problem that the airbnb app is too good? And the craigslist world is okay?

This sounds surprisingly similar to the (old) anti-Uber argument wrt taxis.

> Buildings should be able to opt out, and airbnb should respect it, and ban users that misuse it.

I think this is the part that kinda irks me though. Why would any building, township, city ever opt-in? You're specifically asking the people who have every incentive to say no while completely ignoring the renters and tenants who actually benefit from the transaction.

If you only ask the people who own property near where the city wants to build a new highway color me surprised when it's a resounding no.

Airbnb is a net negative to most of the population unlike housing or a freeway

I don't think Craigslist gets used much for vacation rentals. Its certainly not well designed for that use case.

I wonder he w many people are renting out their Airbnb’s on Airbnb.

> AirBnB is clearly used to create illegal hotels and that's the problem

I agree. It shouldn’t be illegal.

Taxed like a hotel? Taxed on the business and also the tourism taxes on the guests' stay?

Maybe also an infrastructure tax, based on the increased traffic to the area.

Enforcement of civility, maybe the option to, in-lue of a local rules enforcer to attempt to de-escalate before calling the police the option to pay additional taxes and have the noise and nuisance ordinances (which should exist and have teeth, unlike everywhere I've lived) enforced by those officers?

By that reasoning, sex workers should be able to operate from any home too. Or carpenters. Or mechanics. Or pubs. Or concerts...

There is a reason zoning exists.

> By that reasoning

No! Bad! Stop that!!

The fact that I think some currently illegal things should be legal is not evidence that anything and everything should be legal.

Similarly the fact that some things are made illegal is not automatic evidence or reasoning that another, different thing should also be illegal.

Different things are different. The reasons why one thing should be legal or illegal may or may not apply to a different thing.

LOL! I am not your dog. :-)

The "reasoning" was that a hotelier business was fine to run in the middle of a community. I merely listed other example businesses as a lede.

You seem to think there are reasons for why one business might be ok but others aren't. Care to detail those reasons?

Or are you worried that those reasons also apply to AirBnB?

As always it's a matter of judgement which businesses are ok and which are a nuisance.

Any number of desk job type businesses would not worry me much. Strip joints tend to be open late at night and have lots of traffic, so that's the other end of the spectrum.

AirBnB for me is not necessarily at the desk job end but they're also not at the strip joint end. I think it's up for debate.

The matter of judgement comes down to "Who's judgement?"

AirBnB clearly thinks it is fine. The people on either side of AirBnB renting may think it is fine. People living next door don't get a say, and yet have to deal with the social outcome. They want a say.

Why do they want a say?

Reputation with your neighbours is the outcome of repeated interaction - prisoners dilemma-ish in action.

Humans prove time and again their behaviour can't be guaranteed when they perceive they are anonymous, or the interaction is a once off.

I think "it is up for debate" as to how to proceed in future. I don't think it is up for debate that we can continue without change.

What reasoning? The GP's post is completely devoid of any reasoning, for as far as I can see.

I am generally against airbnb as it induces rent-seeking behavior. This is bad for the economy because you are not adding value (in an economic sense). Plus the added dis benefits if increasing rent, reducing housing supply, etc. Ultimately it is a product of cheap money and as soon as the money is no longer cheap, it will be detrimental to airbnb. Sadly, the pandemic has increased our government's addiction to printing money...

Does a hotel not add economic value?

Most places have enough hotel capacity except for very special occasions meaning it mostly shifts value.

To an extent it has an effect it mostly decreases average cost of staying while increasing cost of actually living there almost like vacuuming money out the pockets of residents to give to Airbnb and tourists.

I am not even sure it decreases the cost of staying. Hotels are remarkable value except during peak season, and even then airbnb are also expensive. No financial benefit to the tourist.

> 4. Brings temporary residents into neighbourhoods that have no tie to that neighbourhood.

That's the most attractive thing about AirBnB for me, seeing real homes and not living off a hotel room.

1 is not an externality. It is fully priced in to the cost of renting the unit.

Temporary lodging and long term housing are not substitutable which means that Airbnbs are introducing net-new increases in demand in an area.

> Reduces housing supply

I am a bit confused about this one. AirBnB does not destroy buildings, and they don't keep places empty, empty buildings make no money. In fact, before it started to be used as pseudo-hotels, it was a way for people to monetize the time they don't spend at home by having a tenant.

I mean, before AirBnB, where were travelers staying? Hotels are the obvious answer, but AFAIK hotels still have customers. So what is happening? Are there more travelers than before (outside of pandemics)?

Not saying that there is no problem with AirBnB, but it shouldn't reduce housing supply unless there is some deeper underlying problem.

Here in San Diego (a big tourist town), in recent years our hotel vacancy is rising, and rents are rising as well, as tourists flood into livable dwellings (Airbnbs).

Further, hotel taxes used to fund a great deal of the city, but Airbnbs are not subject to the tax, so the city's finances are struggling as well.

Personally I'm fine with Airbnbs, and I often stay in them myself when I travel, but if you own more than one Airbnb, you should probably be taxed (and regulated) similar to a hotel owner.

> Further, hotel taxes used to fund a great deal of the city, but Airbnbs are not subject to the tax, so the city's finances are struggling as well.

That's really San Diego's fault, though. Many cities and states have classified Airbnbs as hotels for taxation purposes, or created new (taxed) categories specifically for them. For example, Hawaii charges a "transient accommodations tax" of 10.5%, as well as a general excise tax of 4%, and counties can add more to that if they want.

Yes, exactly my point.

Your question here seems genuine so I really hate that people use downvotes as "I don't agree with this person" rather than a comment simply being disingenuous, trolling, full of unsubstantiated claims or otherwise low-quality.

So here's an example of what I mean when I say "reduces housing supply" [1]:

> However, since the onset of the coronavirus crisis the tourist leasing market has dried up, and landlords in the sector have reverted to advertising their properties on sites like Daft.ie

> ...

> In contrast, availability in the rental market has bounced, with 41 per cent more properties for rent nationally and 92 per cent more in Dublin.

So by "reducing housing supply" I mean there are less units to rent or buy because existing supply has been taken off those markets to become illegal hotels.

[1]: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/pandemic-reveals...

I know people who have bought properties specifically to put them on Airbnb, 24/7/365. They believe that they can get more money out of the property that way than if they put it up for a more traditional long-term rental. If it weren't for Airbnb, they wouldn't have bothered, and those properties would likely have ended up being bought as a primary residence or leased as a long-term rental home.

I don't think most people object to the idea of people (short-term) renting out a room in the place where they live, or even renting out their in-law unit, or (perhaps slightly more controversially) renting out a vacation home while they aren't there. But turning a residential property into a year-round short-stay hotel does indeed reduce the housing supply.

Not sure how to answer your question about hotels. I don't know if business is worse for them, or if there are indeed more travelers than before.

It reduces the supply of long term housing. Units that would otherwise be up for sale or rent under a standard term rental are now being used as short term rentals

I agree with all of your points, at least at some point. This doesn’t mean I should call treat this “study” as science, as it is not.

With or without airbnb, states aren't about to create anything close to a policy which compels existing landowners to rent out parts of their property. How do you increase housing supply?

Connecting two parties together to rent a place is no problem in general. But the difference here is that AirBNB has, until very recently, been extremely focused on short term rentals that walk and talk like hotels. Most cities ban rentals less than 30 days, unless it is a room in someone’s house or another dwelling unit on their property. AirBNB was great when it was filled with this, but as soon as multi-unit operators took over the site and it became filled with unlicensed hotels that flout the city bylaws, it went downhill and I fully agree that this impacted the supply and pushed negative externalities on everyone else.

1) Change zoning to actually allow mixed use and high-density living space instead of single-family

2) Fix tax laws and incentives so that property owners actually pay tax based on the real value of the property instead of whatever nonsense they pay today (California is especially bad for this, but the mortgage interest tax deduction sure as hell doesn't help)

3) Reduce red tape and regulatory bullshit that slows or massively drives up the cost of new developments

Externalities caused by Airbnb opposers: 1. Block people's access to tourism 2. Worsen the economy by artificially cuts demand from supply 3. Hurt tourism workers including restaurants workers, etc 4. Create segregation which is partially what nativism is about 5. Hurt people who live there and love talking to travellers

If you don't want "other people" in your sight and zero nuisance, buy the entire street. Personal preference relying on inefficient resource allocation should be paid for.

Airbnb should be a boon to the local economy. Tourists with money to spend at local businesses is literally the basis of the entire economy for multiple regions around the world.

It's only a 'problem' because our local governments have perverted the housing market (and hotel market) with a Gordian knot's worth of regulation and red tape. How is it that we as a society are so dysfunctional as to be unable to build concrete cubes with windows at an affordable price?

If tourism is the basis of the entire economy for a given region, then that region usually has plenty of legal short-term accommodation options. Not to mention that these options are usually cheaper than Airbnb!

>Not to mention that these options are usually cheaper than Airbnb!

Not in my experience, at least not for anything comparable. Yes, a 3-star queen room in the city without a kitchenette is cheaper than a studio queen Airbnb ten minutes out from downtown, but it's not comparable.

I have neither rented or rented out an Airbnb. However, I see no problem with a homeowner renting out his home for short periods.

Everything we do has negative externalities, including driving a car. I don't see how Airbnb's are considered so bad. Moreover this is a correlation study in one city. The title implies a causal analysis which this is not.

Pretty easy to phack your way to whatever conclusion you want using correlations. Moreover what is the magnitude of increase? From 0.0001% to 0.001% . The article should show some absolute counts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com