Hacker News Reader

You'll be happy to hear then that their growth continues to be excellent. (And no, unfortunately, I can't give the numbers. But it's the sort of growth you can get only from some underlying wave of change.)

>Second, I feel in some sense, the tide is turning the other way on the regulation front

Not to start a flame war, but I think this discussion is pretty prevalent with things like Uber and other 'disruptive' services: should we spend time thinking about why regulations are in place? I'm pretty sure a lot of the rules in leases about not doing airbnb is because most people don't want their neighbors running a hotel and it can cause prices to go up for people looking to live in an area (because of people potentially running a whole "network" of these).

It's good to hear you're getting terrific guests, but I think it's important to acknowledge that some of the rules are there for a reason too( not saying you don't think so).

I saw a bright lightbulb above my head for a moment: a paid service for $99 per month (or whatever!) and we will daily/weekly monitor if any of your properties/tenants are listed on BnB. Optional service for extra buck: we will mail them C&D letter (with Realtor logo on it, of course) to violators. I can see a brilliant marketing campaign and can imagine many Realtors signing up!

Does something like that already exist?

Instead of a C&D, have it track how much your tenants are Airbnbing their place for, then raise rent to that exact amount, minus a 5% cleaning & management fee that is theirs to keep.

I'm gonna guess the correlation between profitable airbnb and rent control is strong.

If you have a rent controlled tenant, catching them subletting is a dream come true.

nostromo can you elaborate on why its a dream come true? what could the landlord do?

Kick them out for breaking the terms of the lease and raise the rent up to current market rate for the next tenant.

This is actually a great idea. (obviously don't check JUST airbnb; vrbo, homeaway, craigslist, etc.) Potentially also watch the news/police for mentions of crime or restraining orders or convictions with tenants, too. As long as the terms of your lease or HOA clearly state what's prohibited, making it easier to enforce this seems like a useful service.

We do not need a company that makes it easier for landlords to wield power over their tenants, or to harass or expel tenants with a checkered past. This idea is a great example of the kind of "efficiency" that the internet produces that gives more power to the powerful.

I agree about checkered past -- I'd be upset if someone rented to a tenant, did a background check after movein, and then evicted for historical behavior. Most of this is covered by housing law already -- you probably couldn't evict someone who was already a tenant because you found out he had been evicted 3 years ago for murdering his landlord or less implausible stuff.

I'm talking about present things, though -- if someone is actively subletting your property or using it as a hotel, or actively using it to run a drug retail business, etc. Knowing current restraining orders could be useful for security (although arguably the tenant should report those if it's a multi-unit complex) -- there's less of an argument for that. There probably would be for things like the sex offender list, though.

In California it can take up to 6 months to evict a problematic (and frequently non-paying) tenant, so any kind of efficiency would boost the availability of properties to tenants who have no such problems.

Yes, evictions have been made difficult because of the enormous power difference between a landlord and a tenant. You really think that's a bad thing?

edit: typo

End of the day it's all priced in - other renters pay inflated prices to compensate for a few bad apples.

So yeah, it's kinda a bad deal for those who always pay on time - they're measured against the same risk as a rando off the street, which is why a rental application today can involve a background check and employment reference.

Given that the people I (and the startup scene in general) selfishly want in the Bay Area are largely younger, immigrant (from abroad or other parts of the country), or otherwise don't have a long credit history, and haven't been living in rent controlled apartments for a long time, it seems pretty clear where self interest lies, here, too.

Of course, Prop 13 screws the same people -- a 55 year old state worker who has lived in his house for 25 years pays ~nothing in property taxes, where a startup person (or really any 23 year old without family property) either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) directly, or pays them in rent (a person who has owned a house for 40 years can still rent it on the market at the prevailing rate, which is high due to supply constraint and any new supply needing to reflect current purchase and thus tax levels).

I'm all for tenants, in general, vs. landlords, and generally for people beginning their careers vs. incumbents, but rent control doesn't help new households.

> either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high)

Under Prop 13, property tax rates in California are limited to 1% of assessed value. Its true that a new purchaser will pay this on something like the actual current value, unlike someone who has owned for a long time with real appreciation faster than the limited rate of increase of assessed value, but the rate won't be any higher for the recent purchaser.

I meant that for the same total property tax collection, if it were applied to all property at the current value, the rate would be less than 1% for everyone, since "old" properties would have higher assessed values. (although 1% as a property tax isn't inherently bad; I'd prefer 1-2% property tax or a higher rate as LVT, and correspondingly lower income, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and/or better quality state services)

Whether it exists or not, someone should apply to YC with this idea just to give PG & co a good laugh.

Why would you want to be a force for something like that? Spend your energy doing something productive. I think Airbnb has an honest mission and the legality will hopefully work itself out. I guess if you're just looking to make a quick buck, maybe. But then why not go into finance or something, rather than build a startup that aims to hurt startups?

Force for what? For preventing contractually-prohibited uses of my property? That sounds like a fine application, even if it doesn't match your worldview.

I own a home (remote, long story). I hope my property manager monitors my realestate in this fashion. Legally, I'm on the hook for all sorts of eventualities and insurance related to the property (eg. fire and perhaps even injury). I'm not willing to foot the extra risk (or bills!) of having a tenant inviting itinerant AirBnB visitors -- that's why subleasing is not permitted by my contract with the leasee.

Would I be happy with an alternative that yields higher net returns than a property manager? Absolutely. Do I want it done on my property against my permission? Hell no.

Agreed. I really don't understand the sense of entitlement that people have when it comes to doing things that are specifically against the lease they signed upon renting and apartment (or against the CC&Rs of the HOA they willing bought into).

Just FYI, the first url in your profile is spelled wrong.

Great idea btw :)

Thanks, fixed that

Posted this on firespotting - there is definitely a small profitable business in your idea -

"Second, I feel in some sense, the tide is turning the other way on the regulation front."

If a business makes sense, and consumers get a taste of it and have positive experiences, it's very hard to stop[1]. Institutional inefficiencies usually only last when better solutions are adequately hidden from consumers.

I was pretty skeptical of AirBnb a while ago because I underestimated the effectiveness of trust and rating systems. I thought that the initial excitement was really just because the system masked the risks people were taking. I should have known from eBay that it can be done.

If they do have the trust thing worked out pretty well, then it's a very solid business model. Net travel from any one city is generally close to zero[2], so having a ton of hotels is pretty inefficient.

(I'm not an airbnb user, but I see why it's appealing.)

[1] It could really only be stopped if airbnb were somehow vilified. For instance, if newspapers started running stories like "downtown overrun by out-of-town vandals using airbnb" (just to give an absurd example).

[2] It varies seasonally, of course, which might mean that there are more people in tourist areas in the summer, causing a need for things like hotels. But many tourist destinations are also major cities, with their own residents leaving on holiday as well.

By "institutional inefficiencies" you must be referring to the leases that apartment renters sign that state no subletting, or HOAs that most condo owners willing enter into that have similar restrictions.

If anyone reading this comment wonders, "HOAs" seems to be "Home Owner Association" which according to Wikipedia is a type of corporation in the United States - that are usually setup by real estate developers for the purpose of "marketing, managing and selling of homes and lots in a residential subdivision".

By setting up a "HOA", the real estate developer gets certain privileges that easies their exit and transferring of the property to the residents.

Exactly.

Of course, there are some details that might cause problems. A landlord might expect more headaches and confusion from someone subletting the place, and may want to raise the rent to compensate.

Also, just because it's inefficient doesn't mean that it's easy to solve. Copyright is obviously inefficient, but not easy to solve.

"First, it's becoming increasingly difficult to make reservations as a guest in a nice place unless you're planning 4-6 months ahead of time. Some people have the luxury of doing that, many do not. I've just taken reservations for both Xmas and New Year's eve at my place in NYC and it's barely the end of July."

Have you heard about supply and demand...