Hacker News Reader

Comment by nawitus | Hacker News Reader

>I'd have to dig up the article but I've read about shady landlords evicting residents and turning entire apartment buildings into Airbnb hotels.

Why shouldn't landlords have the right to turn their buildings into Airbnbn hotels? (Assuming that the landlord pays taxes as usual, and the evicted residents were evicted under the rental agreement).

View on HN

The fire codes and taxes for a hotel are much more onerous than for a residential apartment building. Presumably landlords who are doing illegal conversions are flouting both, plus also violating zoning rules by converting a residential building into something else. (I believe NY zoning has specific "hotel districts".)

I think it has a lot to do with residential rental inventory as well. Rent control. There is such limited available apartment rental inventory that to take units off the market, carve them up and sell them as hotel stays completely skews the real estate market and drives up the rent. If every landlord did that no one would have a place to live

I kind of find myself being more sympathetic to landlords in this case. Yes, if everyone did that there wouldn't be any space to live, but looking for short-term subleasers is also a lot more risky. They need to be found, first of all - you're competing with every other of their residence choices - and after that, they have a greater risk of damaging your property. But if after this pro/con analysis, it is economically better for you to do short-term leasing - I think you should be able to.

Also hotel safety laws do not exist in a vacuum. AirBnb renters should be properly informed that the building they are entering has passed building inspection codes, but cannot guarantee hotel-level hygiene and fire code safety. Once fully informed, if the renter still chooses AirBnb, it's their call. People can sleep over at their friends' houses, or at strangers' houses without exchange of money anyway - the fact that money does change hands doesn't change the facts about the parties involved.

Disclosure only works when the customer has a real ability to assess the risk they're accepting. Most folks aren't even aware of the fire codes for hotels versus residences, or why they exist. (In particular, the extra danger in fleeing a fire in an unfamiliar building.) Once you have money changing hands, it's a business, and isn't comparable to having houseguests over for the night - the motives are profit-based.

I assume that hotels have to comply to additional regulations (safety, hygiene, etc) and taxes. In this context, an AirBnB hotel would be a de facto hotels, without all the legal constraints. So this is not fair, to your competitors.

Also, zoning laws.

So it is OK for people to live there (health-wise) but not OK for people to stay there temporarily? I mean, if there are 200 people in a building and it burns down does it really matter if they were there temporarily or permanently? Bizarre.

The only way justification I could see is that if it were not hygienic, there is a chance of a outbreak of a virus happening (but that is no different than the metro or a flea market).

> * if there are 200 people in a building and it burns down does it really matter if they were there temporarily or permanently?*

It absolutely matters, and your scenario is a very serious one. Permanent residents know where the fire exits are, and which hallways are dead-ends. Temporary residents may not even be aware which windows open onto a fire escape.

Given that deaths by fire in NYC were in a record low in 2012, when AirBNB rentals in NYC were presumably at a record high, maybe the lack of fire regulations aren't actually that big a risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/58-fire-deaths-in...

Have you ever lived near a hotel? My building in Chicago was in the same complex as a hotel. It was a very nice hotel (Doubletree), but there was a steady stream of college students on spring break, prostitutes soliciting business travelers, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com