Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Much of the criticism of Airbnb in this article seems to stem from renters "subletting" their apartments to vacationers. Why does Airbnb allow renters to list their apartments on Airbnb at all? In virtually no case does a renter have a lease that permits Airbnb-style listings; the boilerplate lease that virtually everyone works from requires landlord approval for each subletter.

It seems unconscionable to rent an apartment from a landlord and then use the space to run a hotel. Anybody who's ever rented more than one apartment knows that landlords are picky about tenants, often requiring credit checks as well as references from previous landlords. Renters sign a binding agreement with their landlord stipulating that they're using the space as their private residence. Breaking that agreement for profit is unethical.

View on HN

All of this is true, it is unethical and illegal. But it is also true, that in cities like San Francisco and NYC (especially SF-Co) rents are absurdly high, and landlords care nothing other than making the most of it. My previous two landlords forced me to pay only cash for rent, and I know many other landlords do the same, and cheat on taxes.

In one place I went, they wanted 450$ for "application fee and credit check", and it was not even a luxury apartment, wasn't in Manhattan or any high rent place.

I am not defending any party here - just pointing out, noone in this mess is totally ethical.

Usually the places that want $450ish, it's a single check that they'll hold onto and, iff they decide to give you the apartment, they'll actually take it (otherwise they return the check). That way they're guaranteed that you're a serious applicant (or they get a consolation sum if you're not). It's sort of a like a security deposit on your application.

I don't care for it myself.

What about the legitimate tenants in the building?

California has limits on what landlords can charge for "application fees". I think it's around $40.

"All of this is true, it is unethical and illegal. But it is also true, that in cities like San Francisco and NYC (especially SF-Co) rents are absurdly high, and landlords care nothing other than making the most of it. My previous two landlords forced me to pay only cash for rent, and I know many other landlords do the same, and cheat on taxes."

Way to go on painting every single landlord as greedy bastards who care about nothing other than squeezing every single penny out of the tenant based on your own personal limited experience. Don't be so quick to generalize that all landlords are slumlords. For every story of landlord abuse, there is one for tenants who take advantage of the system as well.

> For every story of landlord abuse, there is one for tenants who take advantage of the system as well.

And there are occasional stories of landlords being awesome, too - ours let us use her wifi while we waited for our net to be hooked up, for instance.

I will offer a counter-example to tptacek's argument:

For 18 months (till April) I lived at 16 Waverly Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. I never signed a lease. The landlord did not care about a thing, so long as I paid the rent on the time. In that building, sub-letting apartments is common. The landlord is an older Hasidic Jewish gentleman, and his attitude toward renters is fairly common among the Jewish landlords who own a large chunk of the southern Williamsburg neighborhood. In all of these buildings, the tendency is toward laissez faire. This cuts both ways: the landlord lets you do anything, but the landlord rarely fixes anything that you need fixed. For a particular type of person (like me) this seems like a reasonable trade-off. And in such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for renters to find sub-letters.

And in cases like that, I don't see much of a problem with Airbnb. I'd just add that cases like that aren't the norm.

"Breaking that agreement for profit is unethical."

Of course it is. There was another story about a tenant in NY getting sued after his landlord started renting out apartments.

But it is also true that your lease could allow you to sublet with an AirBnB type arrangement, so for AirBnB they probably have you sign up saying "Yes, I am allowed to do this." and leave it up to the participants to be legal and if they aren't having the landlord deal with it.

A number of stories we have yet to hear are "AirBnB got me kicked out of my apartment." or "I was arrested sued by a hotel chain." kinds of stories. I think of them as the sounds of disruption. Basically they have created a market, very much like eBay created a market, or Craigslist, and suddenly there are commerce opportunities that didn't exist before, combined with a tight economy and poof, disruption.

Airbnb is getting me kicked out of my NYC apartment.

I just received a notice of termination from my landlord in the mail. It states that I am violating my lease by using my apartment as a hotel/bed and breakfast and that I have two weeks to move out. As evidence, they included my airbnb posting and the two reviews I received from the two people who stayed in my apartment (one for two nights and one for five nights). The apartment is not rent stabilized and I have lived here for two years, always paying my rent on time. I don't know if it is legal that they are trying to kick me out of my apartment with two weeks notice, and I don't know if they can use my airbnb posting as proof. I'm going to see a lawyer this week.

Question: Why does Airbnb need to deal with this at all?

I mean, if these apartments were being advertised on craigslist or local classifieds would you think they need to deal with it?

The classifieds don't provide comprehensive listings of short-term vacation rentals.

But I'm not saying Airbnb "needs" to deal with it. I'm saying they "should" decline listings from people who don't own their property absent some documentation of consent from the landlord of that property.

I'm not going to pretend I understand all the issues here but would you really want to be half pregnant here? I mean their users are violating all sorts of little laws in thousands of jurisdictions (all the cities/towns/counties/provinces/etc.) all over the world. In some cases this is bad form in some cases that's how BNBs work. I have a sort of feeling that it's better to take the "not my job" approach here rather than doing a half-assed job.

Yeah, the "half pregnant" point here is probably really good; Airbnb is probably in a terrible bind here.

Houses can be rented and apartments can be owned. Think of all the different local laws that might apply to someone that owns a condo, rents an apartment, owns a house, owns a townhome or rents any of these. Hell, even a HOA might have something to say about it. Then again you might rent from a person who doesn't care if you sub-rent out.

Having AirBNB try to determine if every single renter/homeowner has the rights would be a nightmare.

I understand that there's some ambiguity to the term, but for most people in the US, the word for an apartment that is owned by occupants who do not own the rest of the building is "condominium". Also, you should note that most condominiums have even stricter rules for usage of the building; these are legally binding agreements that attach to the mortgage of the condo.

It is very, very easy for Airbnb to attempt to determine whether a lister owns their property. Obviously, they aren't foolproof. But for starters they could just have a checkbox, and a big red warning if you check it.

  very, very easy...attempt to determine

Yes, they can attempt at determining the ownership but a condominium can also be rented out by the individual landlord legally (as in my case twice at two different residents). A lease is a unique binding contract that varies even within an apartment/condo complex.

The hosts do agree to the terms of service, but I suppose if they want to make it less agreeable to hosts they could scare them away with a big red warning when signing up.

The problem, I suspect, is that people who own their homes are much harder for Airbnb to work with than people who are renting. Airbnb grew quickly by removing friction and making it very easy for people to list space and by providing the bare minimum support to people who list places. That was "good enough" for renters because they don't own the homes and don't care as much. Homeowners might expect a level of service that would tie up a lot of resources and hurt scaling.

and airbnb really doesnt care about this or they would take further steps to ensure that their rentors have the authority to rent the place. they say they do, but they don't. without renters i think airbnb would be in trouble..how many homeowners really want strangers coming in and out of their home regularly?

"how many homeowners really want strangers coming in and out of their home regularly?"

Everyone who runs a Bed and Breakfast business from their home? (In the UK this sector is huge).

"Everyone who runs a Bed and Breakfast business from their home? (In the UK this sector is huge)."

"everyone" and "huge" - can you put some #s or %s behind this statement? is it 5% of the homeowner population?

Don't know overall, according to Wikipedia here in Edinburgh there are apparently "several hundred" - which seems quite a lot for a city of less than half a million people. Having said that, Edinburgh does get quite a few visitors (~1 million overseas visitors a year).

There's a category of homeowners like that: vacation home owners who DO explocitly want people coming in and out and paying.

I like Airbnb, and while I think they should own up to their users real tax liability (if you're listing your place for the majority of the year, you're a hotel), I don't want to see them smote by regulations.

But that doesn't mean I'm shrugging my shoulders and saying "eh, that's what disruption looks like!" when renters in apartment buildings convert their spaces into mini-hotels. That's abusive. Fortunately, it's also unlawful, and there's a clear chain of responsibility to resolve it.

Cotenants in buildings experiencing Airbnb abuse shouldn't bother talking to Airbnb or their neighbors. They should report the conversion to their landlord, and then have a notice-and-cure drafted. In most circumstances, landlords probably cannot allow their buildings to be partially converted into hotels under the terms of their existing tenants leases.

we are talking about homeowners who own a 2nd home and in many cases, have bought it expecting to rent it out at least part of the time. they went into that purchase with the mindset of sharing with strangers. i would be very interested in using airbnb if i owned a vacation home.

This practice is part of the problem. It is bidding up the cost of apartments for locals who need a place to live.

In general, the people who have 2nd vacation homes buy single family houses or condominium apartments. They don't rent, because that doesn't get them ownership of anything. The 2nd home is generally a more speculative investment than anything else.

So no, they're not really pushing up the costs of rental apartments, because they're not in that market segment at all.

Meh. It's the software engineers making $150,000 each bidding up the cost of apartments more than it is J Random Tourist-Supplemented Income dude.

I have no idea if AirBnB does that to apartment rents but I do know that some formerly sleepy coastal towns became too expensive (in recent decades) for locals to buy a house due to second homes being bought there by wealthy non-residents. I have no idea how to fix such a problem but I know it is real.

I am my sister in-law both do this. It's a great way to purchase a vacation home and off-set the cost. Just make sure you financially plan for the worst and hope for the best :)

Why does Airbnb allow renters to list their apartments on Airbnb at all?

What is the incentive for Airbnb to check? Even assuming most listers do have the legal right to do so, checking in a way that isn't easily gamed would be time-consuming and expensive. It's pretty obvious why they don't do that; it would put them out of business.

Was this a rhetorical question meant to make the point "Airbnb is bad"?

I said I liked Airbnb, so you can safely assume that no point I raise is a cryptic barb at them.

I think Airbnb has no incentive right now to try to ensure that listings are legitimate or authorized, and that that's a problem.

Checking the credit of the tenant is about the landlord worrying they won't get paid. This is entirely unrelated to the tenant's relationship with a potential subletter.

The rest of your post stands, though - landlords have a valid concern for the condition of the apartment, disruption of other tenants, &c.

As a - former - landlord, I can tell you that I was interested in much more than just credit scores. I wanted to have stable, long term tenants in my units. I also wanted responsible people who would tell me if there was a drip so that I could fix it before it became and issue. I found that the more time I spent vetting tenants, the less time I had to spend worrying about disputes and other issues. Tenants live in a valuable asset and everything from their cleanliness to job stability really matters.

Right, my point was that the parent had mentioned credit scores, and those in particular were irrelevant. As I said, the general point - that landlords deserve some measure of oversight in the handling of their valuable assets - absolutely stands.

Not all landlords have leases, credit checks, or references. What about those cases?

You just knew someone was going to come in here pointing out that they knew of a landlord that drafted their lease on the back of a used Kleenex. Well. I stand corrected, then.

What? I didn't say that, at all. I'm just saying there are a ton of cases where landlords don't require leases to be signed. Credit checks and references are less common than leases. I live in Chicago and in a big city like this one, there are many, many different renting situations (not just "Kleenex" ones) and not all of them contractually come in conflict with a renter having someone pay to live in part of an apartment.

I live in Chicago and rented in Chicago for many years and I never saw a lease that hadn't been drafted by a lawyer. Most leases are boilerplate --- let alone rentals without leases. If you're renting an apartment without a lease, something shady is going on.

But look, in the meantime, can we just implicitly narrow the conversation down to the normal case of "renters with actual leases"? This is a stupid tangent. Obviously there are landlords who don't give a shit if people in their buildings convert apartments to hotels, just as there are buildings where the other tenants don't care either.

A rental without a lease? That sounds like a friend renting our a spare bedroom to another friend. I would propose that without a lease, it ceases to be a rental, because neither side has any obligation to the other.

Even slumlords require signed leases.

I, like the others in this thread, can only speak to Chicago laws. Here, a verbal lease is a perfectly valid lease, subject to the laws of the city and state (we usually call it "month-to-month"). I wouldn't say it's exactly common, but it's not exactly uncommon either. My last apartment was rented month-to-month for 4+ years (and was a nice apartment with a nice landlord).

In the cases I'm most familiar with, the apartment starts with a lease, and rather than renew the lease specifically, just shifts to a verbal lease, provided the landlord and tenant trust each other. (Were I renting an apartment to someone else, there isn't a chance in hell I would do it without a lease, though.)

I really have to object to the idea that verbal leases are common in Chicago. I think if you set out to find an apartment, an attached house, a carriage house, or a freestanding house today, you'd have a very hard time finding one that didn't have a written lease attached to it.

But obviously this is a tangent. To whatever extent verbal leases are common or not, it's impossible to argue that formal written leases are uncommon. They are the norm.

Really, there are landlords that don't require leases? That seems very strange to me. I guess that's why there's always new Judge Judy cases...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com