Legalize Airbnb
slate.com
slate.com
If I sell an apple to you from my lunchbox, am I a food vendor and need to get a license? What if I sell 100 apples? A thousand?
Government has created these boxes around what it considers employees, restaurants, hotels, businesses, and so forth. Then the industry has waddled up to the trough and helped create a web of laws that prevent just any random schmuck from getting into one of these official categories. Now that we have this ton of innovation, expect a lot of pushback. This article only scratches the surface. If you are acting in the capacity of a hotel, should you have health inspections? Carry a certain kind of insurance? Or are you a landlord, but just for a day? In that case you have all sorts of tenant rights and landlord responsibilities to consider. And the key question behind all of this is: do we want government to apply the same kinds of broad solutions we needed to safeguard consumers in 1850 (I exaggerate for effect) in the hotelling business to one guy who rents his house for a couple of weeks a year? If not, what is the difference? We're going to have to choose: either accept massive government intrusion into every small detail of our lives (monitored by the internet) such that we still fit into this concept of a 1950 economy or deal with a world where these risks we used to not have to worry about are commonplace.
Like I've always said, SOPA and such are just the beginning of the battle. Lots more to come. It's not just big industry protecting it's turf; there'll be a lot of that. It's the problem that the structure of the governmental system doesn't match up to the actual way people are beginning to live their lives. That's a much more fundamental issue.
I don't think legalizing AirBnb is going to help internet entrepreneurs any more than brandishing a squirt gun is going to save you from an armed robbery. The best it will do is cause an imperceptible delay in the oncoming storm.
The problem isn't you or me renting out our apartments, but the guy in NYC who's converting an apartment block into a full-time commercial hotel without meeting the proper safety/health standards. So far, I think this is a minor problem on AirBnB except in NYC, where slum-hotel listings are starting to proliferate, often dishonestly listed as if they were someone personally renting out their private apartment (though the review system does help limit this after the first few people are fooled).
Kids are getting their lemonade stands shut-down by cops. Traveling vendors are getting shut-down in cities because they're competing with established restaurants. The Amish are getting raided by feds for selling raw milk. I can keep going if you wish.
It's okay to drive a motorcycle, but not okay to buy lemonade from a kid? It's okay to smoke cigarettes, but not okay to sell unregulated securities?
Risk should be legal and honestly disclosed. The only crime should be intentionally misrepresenting risk -- and this can easily be done in contract.
I'm not a fan of regulation by any means as I see it adding to the cost of products and service. But by and large they also exist to protect people from their folly and what they don't know about. (The cancer comes of course from when that theory gets out of whack or when groups take advantage of that to exclude legitimate operators..)
"Does the fact that we should let kids run lemonade stands without being hassled also mean that full-scale commercial hotels in Brooklyn should be unlicensed and not subject to health/safety inspections?"
Kids running lemonade stands where you see the kids are running the stand is a risk any typical person would know exists (since they don't know if the kid mixed the lemonade or a parent etc. So they can judge the risk. (Besides being clearly grandfathered in so many ways.)) But kids making lemondade and selling it to the corner store is a risk that people need to be protected against. The key being is a person reasonably able to know the risk that is involved in what they are doing.
So in the case of airbnb I'm not sure people understand the risk they are taking when doing this on a large scale (both from the renting end and the using end). And that is what they need to be protected against.
Roman poet Juvenal in 100 CE remarked how modern people had no sense of civic pride and hard work and instead all modern people wanted was "bread and circuses" (i.e. to eat food and watch entertainment)
Stuff like that is sometimes the case of laws designed to make life harder for the homeless and very poor now getting applied to cute little girls.
You could decriminalise it, but you'd have to let the junkie on the street sell things too. The old days of police knowing which sort of people to apply laws to (based on class, skin colour, accent, etc.), and which sort of people they should not apply laws to, are, thankfully, ending.
First, while it's certainly true that people of every age have complained about the past, it's also true that some ages were really shitty. Rome went through several really bad emperors, for instance. If we are to learn anything from history, we should learn that there exist signs that we are entering an age of tyranny. It's fine to debate what they are, or whether they are prevalent today, but it's not okay just to toss out any observation about the way things currently are with "yeah but people always complain like this" That's a pretty scary throwaway.
Second, and most tragically, the more laws we have the more the police have the ability to selectively choose. You seem to have it backwards. In a society with a few laws, if the cops bust you they have to pick one random one and try to make it fit. In a society with complicated, diverse, and sometimes conflicting laws, they have a lot more options over how to send you to jail, and it's more likely that one of these options will fit. In the states, for instance, we've made it a felony to lie to a federal official in the progress of his duties. That's so broad and free-ranging that even with an attorney present it's not clear what citizens should do to be sure they are not crossing the line into committing a major crime. The police get to decide. Likewise, many states are choosing not to enforce marijuana laws -- a stance I agree with -- but the national government is constantly enforcing them anyway. At a certain level of complexity, it's all about which laws get attention from officials and which don't.
It might seem that creating a more complex system of laws is a natural consequence of having a more complex and modern society. That's also a fallacy, as complex societal interactions have been working just fine with few laws for recorded history. However, the reverse is true: when a certain degree of complexity is reached, society actually becomes much more simple. Once the system is not understandable to the common man, police can do what they want, prosecutors can pick and choose which laws to enforce or not, and politically-connected people get to live like kings.
It is easy to think that each law we add somehow makes the world a more just and fair place to live in, but that's only because in our mind we pretend that this law will be applied universally. Authorities have long since passed the point where laws are applied universally. To hear and get excited about a new set of laws now is simply to desire to enforce one set of laws at the expense of another (we are never told which laws will be receiving less enforcement action). It's a way for politicians to get elected, not make society a more just place.
All of this is counter-intuitive, I'll grant. But it's not like it's a secret.
My law of large numbers: One guy who rents out his house for a couple of weeks is de minimis and can and will be overlooked. 1000 guys who rent out for a couple of weeks is not de minimis. Problems tend to get solved and addressed when there is a bad event or outcome or a large number of people appear to be doing something objectionable to someone. The more events happening the greater the chance of something bad happening, more people being affected and something being done about it.
A single user will fly under the radar. The mere fact that a larger percentage of people are doing something (in this case renting out their rooms) means there is a problem that could happen that needs to be addressed.
You don't even need these "boxes" because you can apply common sense: you are selling a lot of apples. This makes you a "vendor." Apples are food, hence you are a "food vendor." At that point, you have a substantial number of customers.
If the apples you sell are contaminated (by your or a supplier), we need to be able to track down your customers for public health reasons. Hence, the license.
This does not require massive government intervention. That exists because of all of the cruft built up over decades to prevent bad apples (pun intended) from abusing loopholes in the rules.
Food vendor licensing has a common basis with hotel licensing. SOPA is a red herring, as there is no public safety basis that ties it to food or hospitality.
But then again, we're already arguing in court about whether or not a Fig Newton is a cookie for purposes of sales tax, so this isn't an infeasible solution, just one that imposes costs we should be aware of.
New sites we can make: food2u - browse local bored people with kitchens and have them make then deliver food to you; movr - rent (unlicensed, uninsured) people with large vehicles to transport your stuff; qwikcut - find people who cut hair at home; friendzzzz (four Z's) - substitute someone bored instead of a licensed home care nurse; bugoot - find people with excess bugspray to treat your residence; talkerr - find a non-licensed person to share your problems with instead of a school'd therapist.
I wouldn't be surprised if half of those are billion dollar companies waiting to happen.
Judging from history: the wronged-customer stories will pile up until the public demands some form of regulation.
Keep in mind that the laws that make airbnb illegal, are the ones that were created as a reaction to business operating in the prior regulation-free environments. Building codes and fire safety regulations exist as a result of a history of preventably-tragic fires and building failures. Food safety regulations exist as a result of a litany of preventable food-borne illnesses, ingredient fraud, etc.
Regulations/rules/laws require oversight. You can fine a giant hotel. You can verify conditions in restaurants. You can ticket illegal food trucks. Can you stop a guy from making experimental taco flavored cereal at home then delivering it to people who ordered it online? That's a horrible example.
The new rule of startups seems to be: We'll do what we want. You can't stop us.
Basically I agree that the internet will change much of this, but I disagree that there are billion-dollar companies waiting to happen, unless they get the law to (at least tacitly) go along with them. Billion-dollar companies are juicy targets that can't sneak under the radar in the way that individuals can.
e.g. If there's a large scale discontentment with Airbnb following a growing pile of wronged-users, I would expect the site and users would be willing and eager to participate in a hypothetically reasonable/affordable certification process, as users would logically be expected to gravitate to 'certified' spaces and renters given a choice.
You can. All it'd really take is a few people getting sick from his invention and there'd be a huge backlash.
The new rule of startups seems to be: We'll do what we want. You can't stop us.
That only works because no one is trying to stop these new businesses. Don't expect that to last forever.
It's already starting to happen, namely Kim Dotcom.
Still, more than worth the risk.
Yes, quite easily. For the guy selling tacos, possibly prison, but more likely fines. And since we're likely dealing with interstate taco sales, these fines can be enforced via wage garnishment and may even survive a bankruptcy.
For the startup...massive civil lawsuits. That corprate entity they formed? Not going to help them if they are undercapitalized with inadequate insurance or financial reserves, since the corporate veil piercing doctrine will allow plaintiffs to go after the owners and investors personally.
I don't think that the government should be this zealous in enforcing these regulations, but there's a good chance that they will try to make a few examples out of a few unlucky startups/individuals to minimize violations.
I was simply pointing out the historic trend.
Airbnb follows its legal obligations to report monies which it disburses to hosts, which will in almost all cases constitute income, via a 1099 (or similar) form delivered to both the host and the IRS.
see: http://www.airbnb.com/help/question/122 , conveniently located near the top of the search results for [airbnb 1099] (if you knew the probable way they were going to report) or [airbnb taxes] if you didn't.
On a side note, it breaks my heart to read "all this money changing hands without being taxed sure seems weird."
Why? Because you don't like taxes on money changing hands? That debate aside, it doesn't matter- taxes are due, they should be paid.
A personal expense does not become a business expense just because a taxpayer calls it that. But states think they can make an interstate commerce tax into a "use tax" just by calling it that.
Until some of those guests get murdered, raped, videocammed in the shower, have their possessions stolen, etc etc etc.
We have regulation on this type of thing for a reason. Allowing anyone to just suddenly decide they are now a hotel, is a recipe for disaster.
If anything an AirBnB host infinitely more trackable and accountable than a hotel you book directly or through an oblivious intermediary (travel agent). Not to mention the countless minimum wage staff working for these hotels that are also much harder to thoroughly vet and trust individually than a single host.
Just because something is more familiar (hotels) doesn't mean it's safer.
You're talking about small individual regulated hotels, which obviously would be a bit hit and miss with regard to quality/safety, just like buying an iPod from a small shop called the "eyeStore" is going to entail more risk than buying it from Apple or BestBuy etc.
We should really judge this on the data and see if the incidence of crime is higher in Airbnb cases.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18333584 [2] http://portsmouth-nh.patch.com/articles/woman-raped-in-hotel...
In my old house we had a legal rental suite. OUr home insurance went way up when we told them we had a tenant.
We thought about not mentioning this, until it was pointed out that if a fire was started by the tenant and the insurance company found out there was a tenant then we'd get nothing.
And insurance companies are very good about finding out things like this.
You apparently missed last year's PR debacle after someone had folks demolish her apartment to build a meth lab. Airbnb initially refused to pay up. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0803/Airbnb-apologize...
See: http://ejroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2011/06/violated-travele...
That, attached to the fact that most people is not crazy or evil, would give you the right path to pick.
"Can't" and "contractually prohibited from" are two different things...
There is nothing stopping you from putting an ad on Craiglist. However, if you violate the terms of your lease, you can get evicted. Moreover, these sorts of violations are usually not covered by tenant protection laws, so you would not be entitled to the normal eviction procedure protections.
Seriously, stop with the sexism already.
The problem is, the people renting out their rooms on AirBNB are in many cases violating local law, lease terms or insurance contracts. They're also in moral hazard -- they are paying for homeowners/renters insurance while running a roominghouse.
AirBNB's legal position has to be "buyer (ie. landlord) beware". But their marketing position is that it's easy to cover your expenses by renting out your apartment. That paradox is a variation of Napster's old "people are just sharing music like they always have" line.
She chose to pull her listing, and most others in town did as well.
The only constraint I see in Germany come from your rental contract in case the room / appartment you rented out via AirBnB is not your own property. In this case technically you would need the OK from your land lord. If it's owned by yourself, you would have a legal contract with the person staying over. But I'm not a legal expert on that.
EDIT: What puzzles me are some of the comments here. I rather expected them to be along the line of "of course it is, WTF are you thinking it souldn't be???? And "how I like it, great product". But maybe it's just me, I really had a... weird day today! :-)
In most cases it isn't that "AirBNB is illegal" it's that people using AirBNB aren't complying with all local regulations.
But the law in Germany has an other trap. You need to file a book, with passport numbers and name of your tenants, if you are running a hotel like business.
Indeed, it seems that one of AirBNB's primary cost advantages over other VRBO's is that they don't cover tax withholding. This may not matter much if you know how to handle tax payments yourself, but it could become a significant issue when a lot of AirBnB users get audited for underreporting taxes (AirBnB reports payments to the IRS, which makes it easier to spot underreporting).
Note: income tax payments must be made at least quarterly, not annually. The annual payment is intended to cover shortfalls based on estimated taxes following short of actual taxes and yearly tax items (i.e., credits/deductions).
But, just because something doesn't follow an established pattern, doesn't mean its illegal. It would make sense if a community decided to add a "no airbnb" clause to their bylaws/rules - but the govt picking and deciding what is abuse of resources and what is not doesn't sound practical - esp when the resource usage of an airbnb unit is no different when it is rented out versus the owner(s) occupying it themselves.
If there can be things like credit-default-swaps, I don't see why the insurance industry should not come up with instruments for this kind of a market - where there is a market, there must be a way.
That distinction is important, because people generally treat their home with more care. And insurance/mortgages are priced accordingly.
An apartment tenant generally doesn't leave the door open or unlocked -- they don't want their stuff to be stolen or destroyed. But a hotel guest or AirBNB renter has no skin in the game. Have you ever worked at a hotel? People routinely leave patio doors open or prop entry doors when they leave the room.