Hacker News Reader

Claiming hotel regulation has no benefit to consumers is simply not true. Consider the perspective of a resident of San Francisco (like me). SF has a very limited amount of housing. We can debate all day about ways to fix that and impediments to building more (and more affordable) housing, but the simple facts right now are that there are a LOT more people who want to live in SF than there are housing units.

Additionally, there are a lot of tourists that visit SF. Those two demands for places to sleep, from tourists and residents, are at odds. The price you can charge for a hotel room in SF is substantially greater than what you can charge on a nightly basis in stable rent.

So what we're seeing happen in SF is people who have rental units that would normally be on the rental market are now pulling those off the rental market and putting them on the AirBnB market, which serves tourists instead of residents. Because frankly, why wouldn't you? If you can rent your place for $200/night to tourists you can make a hell of a lot more money than you can renting to someone for a year.

The hotel regulations aren't only to help hotel consumers, they're to help the renters too. Now, you could argue the natural market economics should just play out and the city should allow as many hotels to exist as the market will support. But that's not a city I want to live in. I value prioritizing housing for residents instead of tourists.

You may value that prioritization, but that isn't strange as you are a renter and so prefer things aligned as close as possible to your personal benefit.

That is simple egoism, don't coat it in nice language.

Um, in exactly the same way that tourists prefering their interests to be prioritized is also 'egoism', right? Or property owners preferring their incomes to be maximized, just like renters preferring their rents to be minimized. So?

I'm not a "market fundamentalist" by a long shot, but markets generally do a pretty good job of balancing various interests like this. They're a lot better in a case like this than the government attempting to decide how many units must be available for which uses.

>you are a renter and so prefer things aligned as close as possible to your personal benefit

Non sequitur.

Well, in the long term turning the housing into hotels screws everyone because the people who work at and maintain the hotels need somewhere to live too, as do the employees of businesses that bring tourists into the city...

Thank god they aren't building more housing in SF - a temporary fix (b/c eventually you'll run out of housing again) to a non-problem. The NewYorkification of San Francisco would ruin the city.

I talked about it more here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815087 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815537

You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. More people living in a smaller space is much more efficient, and therefore less polluting energy.

San Francisco might be "ruined" by your definition, but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land?

Zoning is central planning at it's worst.

> You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density.

Sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc.

> but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land?

Are you serious? There is the whole idea of community and sustainability. If a community deems a certain construction project detrimental to the overall health and wellbeing of its members then they can stop projects. If I don't want to live next to a highrise and the accompanying noise, traffic, pollution, I have a say in what my neighbor can build.

I'm not personally telling people what to do (because I have no authority). I'm engaging in a public debate over the SF community's values and priorities.

"There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc."

Which is not created by suburban sprawl, either. You seem to (without support) indicate that this is not possible with denser communities.

The problem you described has a very simple solution. Grant more permits to increase the number of brand new housing units added to the market each year. The rate at which SF adds housing units given demand is absurd. In fact, you'd probably have many more small business opportunities in SF if the city were willing to add residential units faster.

Where would you put them? The demand is IN SF, not in the hills outside, or in Oakland.

How about building upwards? Learn to think in three dimensions.

Earthquake territory, which severely limits how far up you can go.

Bullshit. That isn't a problem for Tokyo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama...

I remember someone from Vancouver saying the same thing about that city in a previous HN thread on this topic.

Earthquakes are just an excuse used by NIMBYs who want to preserve their oh so precious "bay view".

Which is why the financial district was wiped off the map during the 1989 earthquake, whereas lower units such as those in the marina survived without problems?

The Marina was wiped off the map in the 89 earthquake. It's built entirely on landfill and suffers from terrible liquefaction. The buildings there suffered bad structural damage and many people who lived in the Marina at the time moved elsewhere because of all the damage, making room for all the yuppies that took over that neighborhood.

So long as the foundation is bedrock, there is nothing preventing the building of highrises in San Francisco. We have the technology.

There is actually tons of demand in silicon valley but development there is mostly illegal. Mountain View recently rejected Google's request for mixed use zoning in the Googleplex which IMO is just gratuitous nimbyism (it's not even in anyone's back yard!). This is probably related to so many silicon valley types living in SF instead of anywhere near their work.

There is no plausible 'consumer protection' story that would explain why building codes for permanent residence are not good enough for temporary residence as well. The law is there to protect hotel operators from vacation rental competition.

This is not a very thoughtful comment. There are obvious reasons why properties zones for permanent residence aren't appropriate for transient residence; the latter type of occupancy is accompanied by crime and abuse.

You seem to be falling into the trap of considering "consumer protection" only from the perspective of the tenant.

Is there any evidence that apartments rented out with AirBnB are more prone to crime and abuse of non-tenants than apartments not rented out with AirBnB?

You're effectively asking whether apartments rented to unchecked strangers for days at a time are more prone to abuse than apartments rented months or years at a time.

There is a reason hotels require "special use" zoning exceptions in cities, and it's not because Mariott and Hyatt have captured the city council; it's often the residents who create uproars when those exceptions are granted.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, we might be, we might not be.

You are talking about renting apartments to unchecked strangers for days and I am talking about people renting out their apartment on AirBnB. There's some relationship between the two sets but I don't think they're equivalent.

Regardless, is there evidence for the claim that crime and abuse of non-tenants is higher for either the set you're talking about or the set I'm talking about than in the general population?

I haven't looked, but my intuition is that the differences are so pronounced that finding data should not be difficult. I would not want my neighbors regularly renting their apartment while they are out of town. There is already a substantial enough difference in decorum and responsibility between owners and renters that condo associations as well as the mortgage industry (as well as FHA) establish maximum renter to owner ratios.

I live in a high rise that also contains a hotel, but with different lobbies and elevators, and that doesn't bother me. I think this is because a hotel has a management staff that maintains common area decorum and holds occupants responsible for their actions during their stay. An apartment rented on airbnb has no similar oversight or responsibility for common facilities.

[http://delmar.typepad.com/brianbrady/2011/06/owner-occupancy...]

This is seen in Berlin, where some houses have several ferienwohnung. People come and go and are usually very loud while staying. People who really live in those buildings complain a lot and for a reason.

Yes. There is enough evidence of this that NYC created an entirely new beauracracy just to handle these issues. Numerous papers have published articles describing fraudulent or deceptive AirBnB listings, the guests' lack of resource, AirBnB's lack of assistance.

I'm asking about evidence for the higher rates of crime and abuse to non-tenants that tptacek claimed, not about deceptive listings on AirBnB or damage to tenants.

Building codes (construction codes; how you must build), not zoning (what you're allowed to build).

I agree with the general sentiment, I think many of these regulations exist as protection for existing industry, but isn't the risk of a hotel burning down much greater than a home burning down? The potential loss of life in a single incident is far higher.

I imagine the rules about what safety equipment a small ocean-going yacht and an ocean liner must have are pretty different too, for similar reasons.

Your talking about multi-occupancy vs single occupancy, not temporary vs permanent structures. Not sure to which one the OP meant, though.

The rationale behind this is that with permanent residence there is the expectation of a careful examination of the dwelling, and that's relatively cheap because you only have to do it once every couple decades, whenever you buy a house, and hey, people should be able to make their house however they like. With temporary residence, the cost of doing that would be prohibitive, because visitors visit new temporary residences for short durations, and an individual visitor has a low probability of being hurt. Having a shoddy structure is the exact sort of thing where making decisions for immediate profit that have a low probability of high damages in the future that regulations make sense for.

I think it's important to use language that's fair and reasonable when arguing your point.

When you say "There is no plausible 'consumer protection' story for preventing licensed (sic) livery cab drivers from picking up curb hails" (I think you meant unlicensed) it's easy to dispute that point.

Here is the first hit on Google for "cab rider ripoff": http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/taxis_taking_wBtAr13EzaKS... - "At least a dozen hacks have been caught hitting unsuspecting passengers with pricey tolls for bridges and tunnels that the cab never actually crossed".

And the result: "We are confirming these data, and if appropriate, will likewise seek to revoke their licenses," Yassky said. "We will continue to comb the GPS data for any similar incidences."

That type of legal solution is not possible if taxi drivers are unlicensed.

And the well-publicized instances of Airbnb problems (e.g. prostitution) are already demonstrating that at least some of the regulations are in fact necessary.

Finally, the point about consumer bank regulation is, if your bank account does get ripped off, you're insured to $250K by the FDIC, which BitCoin doesn't have. Though perhaps that is a market opportunity for an aspiring YC company?

In any event, you're overstating the case to make your point -- keep the language reasonable if you expect to make your point.

That type of legal solution is not possible if taxi drivers are unlicensed.

The original comment was very specifically worded to only cover licensed livery drivers, not random unlicensed drivers.

"There is no plausible 'consumer protection' story that would explain why building codes for permanent residence are not good enough for temporary residence as well. The law is there to protect hotel operators from vacation rental competition."

As an apartment owner in a multi-unit apartment building, I don't want the neighboring apartments being used as short-term rental properties - and the building regulations forbid it. It's absolutely a quality-of-living and consumer-protection issue protecting property owners from the risks associated with transients.

Why do you need to government to require that? How about you only rent from land lords that disallow tenants from renting out their apartment. Maybe some people don't mind this and would like to have that as an option.

I don't rent - I own my apartment. I've invested in a property and a neighborhood zoned for a specific purpose. Cities are generally configured with zoning laws designed to preserve a certain standard of living for the larger community that extends beyond just a single apartment or building. It helps to preserve the intended use of those properties for people that choose to buy in those neighborhoods.

For instance it gives property owners in a residential neighborhood an assurance that a neighboring building can't decide to convert their rooftop to a nightclub potentially disturbing the neighboring buildings with noise, foot-traffic, car traffic, drunks, trash, fights, etc. If you gave individual landlords the right to make these decisions without wider oversight, you'd run into a lot more issues like these. Sure - today they can petition to override existing zoning regulations and that sometimes happens, but residential issues are larger than just an individual apartment or building.

I always wonder why people with this attitude live in cities. If you want peace and quiet, shouldn't you go get a few acres in the country? Living in the city means you're living right next to a bunch of other people. Living in the city and having the expectation of peace and tranquility and total control over your home just seems like expectations out of whack.

Maybe it's just that I get peeved when people get all "landed gentry" and start thinking that somehow because they are privileged to have been able to buy a piece of property that they have a moral right to control the lives of their neighbors.

That said, I support regulations "within reason" and I suppose it all comes down to a quantitative difference in where we draw that line.

Because that's not always an available option in the housing market. There are some cities (for example, present day San Francisco) where city wide apartment vacancy is so low that tenants basically have to take what they can get. Tenants are at a serious disadvantage to the whim landlords in this kind of market. Thus laws exist that restrict what landlords are allowed to provide, which serves to protect the tenants.

You can make an argument about not restricting the free market, but shelter is such a basic human need that I think it merits a healthy amount of regulation.

And the inadequate amount of housing availability is because of government regulation as well. If they would allow more building this would be less of an issue.

> There is no plausible 'consumer protection' story that would explain why building codes for permanent residence are not good enough for temporary residence as well. The law is there to protect hotel operators from vacation rental competition.

I think Uber and Airbnb stand on different ground here. The building codes issue is a red herring; Airbnb faces more severe problems. I can think of plenty of "traveler protection", "hotel protection", "tenant protection" and "landlord protection" stories. Real stories detailing Airbnb's failure to answer these issues are already circulating the internet:

http://www.google.com/search?q=airbnb+nightmare

(to be fair, these stories seem to focus exclusively on bad tenants, while I can see bad landlords being an issue as well)

Thank you. As an Uber user in DC, I have yet to encounter, or hear of any news event in which Uber put people in a dangerous or even inconvenient situation. It's infuriating to see people compare Uber to a poorly secured Bitcoin site, as if the regulations in banking are somehow equivalent to those with taxi cabs.

Uber only uses licensed sedan drivers. They are already subject to safety regulation, but unlike taxi cabs they are also checked by reviews from passengers. The most frightening experience I ever had in a vehicle was in a taxi cab taking me from the airport in San Antonio to my hotel. He was exceeding 90 mph, and driving recklessly, ignoring the turn signals of other drivers on the interstate. Where was your touted regulation then?

...I have yet to encounter, or hear of any news event in which Uber put people in a dangerous or even inconvenient situation.

Not surprising, considering that Uber currently carries a tiny fraction of the traffic that the cab companies do. As the company scales, it's not hard to imagine that they will need to bear more responsibility for background checks on their drivers, and assume liability for damages those drivers may cause. Full-time drivers will begin battling one another for preferred territory, and Uber will have to mediate the conflicts. In short, Uber will start looking more and more like a traditional cab business, and less and less like a peer-to-peer matchmaking service.

It's not always about the direct users. Having Airbnb people show up next door and have a 3 day party impacts people. Or from a health and safety standpoint, bedbugs easily spread though apartment buildings.

re: "Legitimate banks don't get hacked because there are billions of dollars at stake for the banking institution. "Legitimate" financial institutions do get hacked, and to suggest otherwise is crazy talk. Look here where a financial institution has an exploited flaw ongoing since at least 2008. http://www.batstrading.com/alerts/ ( http://cdn.batstrading.com/resources/system_self_help/BATS_N... )

Agree with you on your other points though.

Legitimate banks don't get hacked? Is that true?

You don't hear of any high-profile bank disclosures, which I imagine is probably because they have security teams that keep up with everything religiously. Most old brick banks have internal systems architected in ways that a younger intruder in the Anonymous mold wouldn't know anything about, as well; you're starting to get into big iron Cobol land.

That said, I don't think it's an impossible task (is anything?), and I'm sure some day there will be a large disclosure through some means, internally-assisted or otherwise.

There was actually a high-profile incident not too long ago with one of the big banks' online banking system. Users could view other people's account information just by incrementing an integer in the URL as I recall. It's not necessarily so much that banks are secure, but hacking them is much riskier than hacking Bitcoin sites, especially for white-hats.

Are you thinking of Heroku? Heroku isn't a bank.

It was probably Santander: http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Santander-s-onlin..., though there have been other instances of bad bank web practices.

Putting plaintext passwords in a cookie doesn't sound anything like incrementing an integer in a URL.

Nothing is impossible, but remotely hacking a bank is pretty damn close. A number of years ago, a friend worked for a large multi-national bank. He once described to me some of the key components of the security system. While the details are hazy (such as I understood them at the time), I do remember that one of the key points was that one of the "very important" servers that handled transactions between outside entities (i.e. other banks) and internal systems was double-firewalled. That is, you couldn't initiate connections from the internet or the intranet. The server would only make connections to hosts of its own choosing, on its own schedule.

Modifying or updating anything on the server required physical access.

That server was located in a secure vault.

They've been getting hacked as long as there have been banks, it's just that they used to have to physically break in, rob the tellers at gunpoint, or commit fraud by assuming someone's identity (say, by forging their signature). Either way, there is a regulatory framework in place that ensures that the depositors are made whole in the event of a such a 'hack'.

Commercial banks do get hacked, it's a very well established fact. For obvious reasons they don't like to talk to the press about these things.

Legitimate banks don't get hacked via Rails exploits.

Bank accounts require identification and bank transactions have paper trails. Additionally international transactions have a lot of delays built in. Robbing a bank is probably safer then hacking one.

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=106

"I was told confidentially by an IT Security specialist from a major bank that the public would be shocked if they knew the amounts that are stolen daily from online financial institutions via ACH and wire fraud. Typically, breaches and total numbers are not revealed because they don’t want to advertise a weakness and they certainly don’t want to alarm customers. Some of the more vicious attacks are State sponsored. I believe him. That’s what bitcoin is up against as it progresses into the mainstream. The leading security experts are in that world, already protecting against the barbarians at the gate. They are not in the bitcoin world."

> There is no plausible 'consumer protection' story that would explain why building codes for permanent residence are not good enough for temporary residence as well.

Your home is your home, so if you die in a fire it's your look out.

But a hotel, or a temporary residence, is not your home, and if you pay money to someone to provide a service they should meet minimum standards for safety.

This is a good thing. It allows small businesses to compete but without using "safety" as an area which can be cut.

You had me until you claimed that bank regulations are different than other regulations.

I disagree 100% with your non-Bitcoin factual assertions because they are demonstrably false but I do not have the time to address them point-by-point.

But I will address this one major factual error: Legitimate banks don't get hacked because there are billions of dollars at stake for the banking institution, and their business literally depends on their ability to secure payments.

Banks are not in the business of securing payments; that is what payment processors like Mastercard and Visa do. Banks are in the business of investing money which has been deposited with them. As a result of (state and federal) legislation, banks are liable for making depositors whole in the event of theft, so they are motivated to invest significant sums in security.