Ahead Of NY Subpoena Hearing, Airbnb Weeds Out Hosts With Dozens Of Listings
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The reaction of "regularfolk" to AirBNB feels very negative. I'm a very active host of a single unit in NYC (and have had a remarkably positive experience - met some wonderful people, received dozens of thank-you notes and gifts, etc.)
But my non-tech friends and folks I tell about this can't get it.
"You let strangers stay in your apartment? Are you nuts?"
"You're running a gypsy hotel in your living room."
"AirBNB should be illegal. Why don't people just stay in a regular hotel?"
"Why would someone want to stay in your place when they can just get a hotel room?"
It hasn't improved over the past few years either. So although AirBNB feels like a darling of the tech community, a LOT of regular people see it in a negative light. I give the pitch every time I talk about it, but it doesn't get me very far. 'Enjoy this while it lasts'
I hate AirBnB in NYC. Why should you be able to rent out your apartment and increase the risk of break-ins and pest-infestations for the entire building?
Your neighbors receive no benefit in the AirBnB.
Edit: Monetary gain need not be the only incentive.
No. My girlfriend and I pay rent in a nice neighborhood so that we have a safe, quiet place to live in NYC. Increased risk of vermin, strangers in the hallway, and giving a stranger a set of keys to the building is not worth an extra bit of money.
It's really unacceptable.
To you, of course. Other people might have different reasons. I don't know whats unacceptable about this.
I don't think it's as black and white as people make it out to be. I think there are specific situations where AirBNB is great, and ones where it isn't.
I hope all turmoil surrounding this new "protocol" (I'm going to call it a protocol instead of AirBNB) will help establish a legal base around it, paving the way for such businesses in the future.
Maybe AirBNB is the "stepping stone" to running businesses out of your house? Maybe instead of just housing, it will be mechanics, it will be artisans of all sorts.
It's against the terms of the lease for the building and the law. If the lease had the statement "tenants may rent out their apartments (counter to the law)" then I wouldn't have grounds to complain. I also would not have rented a unit in the building.
What I predict after some elongated period of time to the chagrin of those who have been affected (and who will continue to be) surrounding this specific case(s) with airbnb is that the law will hold airbnb more responsible, yet the problems mentioned here will still remain because the void will be filled by non physical entity (read: software protocol) that cannot appear in court. And then government will still have to exert resources going after the same actors post facto, and people will still be complaining without doing anything about it.
Obviously, there comes some point when negative externalities rise to the point of being worth regulating against (my neighbors should not be able to do ordinance tests in their backyard), but equally obviously, there are plenty of negative externalities that are not worth regulating against.
I think it's generally under-argued that the negative externalities of AirBnB rise to the level of being worthwhile regulating.
Even if you rent your single family home, a renter only gets the keys to your building, is likely to only potentially damage the things within your four walls, and not in a position to easily break into other apartment units.
First, a "strawman" argument is when I attack a position you do not hold. I don't think I claimed anywhere that you were speaking to single-family homes -- I certainly didn't intend to.
Second, I'm genuinely confused as to what line you're drawing -- you seem to think it's obvious -- between my rights as someone who lives near other people while renting, and someone who lives near other people while owning. On some level, my risk seems greater: if I were a renter, I could after all just move if my neighbors prove troublesome, while if I own, they can destroy the value of an asset I have even if I personally flee the scene.
I agree with you that we can see some avenues of potential risk that apply only to people living in multi-tenant buildings (keys, etc). But this is what I mean about your point being under-argued: all you seem to be doing is listing some potential negative externalities. Everything has potential negative externalities. You could hit me with your car. You could create a fire in your home that would burn down city blocks.
What seems to be missing is both:
1. Some kind of statement about those potentials becoming actuals. How much do the neighbors of AirBnB hosts ACTUALLY suffer? Are the stories of floating brothels etc rare exceptions, or commonplace?
2. Some kind of at least suggestion of where the line between actionable and non-actionable externalities lies.
I do not mean to suggest that these are either easy requirements to satisfy, or that I'm trying to dismiss your argument. I'm just trying to move the conversation past the listing of possible negative externalities. I agree with you. They exist. But where do we go from there?
Have you ever researched why laws preventing short term stays in residences were passed? That would be a good start.
If AirBnB were to listen to all stakeholders and not just customers and investors the consensus would be a resounding 'No!'
And if we push the problems down the road, whats to stop a decentralized network where the listors profit even more with even less payout for negative externalities? Maybe in that case, listors assume more risk, but as it is now, I don't see property owners being proactive and mining listing sites for their properties. Illegal in some areas or not, the law moves too slow to appease the crowd. Hell, I even tried (I took down the website though, might open source it if enough interest) launching a SaaS app last year that did just that, and talked to some of my Real estate friends in NYC and here's the feedback one gave me from the landlords/managers she talked to:
"I spoke with 6 landlords and one real estate property manger and here's what I left with:
1. All the landlords with smaller portfolios agreed that there was no need for such a service, especially if they paid for it. They knew their buildings very well - and the doorman always kept them in the loop.
2. The property manager did not see a use for the service at all. He was actually a bit offended that I asked him about it, but he had a few good points:
- Buildings with property managers keep pretty good tabs on who is coming in and out of their building. Especially if there is a doorman. - He questioned how data on the website would be verified and felt that simply "pulling listings" from other websites was not enough. There are inaccurate listings all over the web - especially in NYC.
3. My personal thoughts are that you would need a dedicated team to verify and confirm air bnb services. Also, after they find out that someone is illegally subletting - what next? Does the website offer a solution? The landlords I spoke with typically used illegal subletting to charge their own tenant additional fees (like $100/day until the illegal subletter is out) so in the case someone is silly enough to do so - they can make money off of it."
The cognitive dissonance on one side in this market is telling me that if airbnb looses this battle, I should do something for the side of the market that is actually trying to solve their problems and pay for it. But, If you know a landlord or property manager that actually has this problem and wants to make money of trying to solve the problems arising because of the negative externalities rather than moan that government isn't doing enough, point me in their direction because I would love to talk more! Can reach me at my username here with gmail.
The problems generally associated with short term rentals did not begin with AirBnB. The solutions are largely reflected in existing regulations. The problems specifically associated with an upsurge in short term rentals in stable residential neighbourhoods largely did start with AirBnB and their competitors and their facilitation of illegal activity.
NYC is just one place where AirBnB operates and it is atypical in that it pits wealth against wealth. Most people in the US don't have doormen and property managers to handle problems for them.
To be honest, the way to address the issue isn't on the supply side, it's by the demand side. AirBnB doesn't really solve a problem most of the time - most of the time their are adequate hotel rooms available in most places. This means that the value proposition for travellers is much more cost sensitive than for black market hoteliers. They have alternatives and it doesn't take much to make those alternatives more attractive than renting illegally, while appealing to the empathy of those renting is a losing proposition since they wouldn't rent if they much cared how the neighbours felt about it.
And going after demand requires much less harsh measures. Fining the renter $200 a day plus a court appearance significantly shifts the value proposition if there is a substantial risk of being caught. On the other hand, the owner can roll small fines and attorney fees into the rents they collect.
And now that airbnb exists and is largely software enabling already present behaviors, if this subpoena results in an injunction and somehow halts airbnb, will the cat be put back into the bag now that people know something like it is possible?
>AirBnB doesn't really solve a problem most of the time - most of the time their are adequate hotel rooms available in most places.
That's highly suspect to say…
>This means that the value proposition for travelers is much more cost sensitive than for black market hoteliers.
… because you say it yourself, they must be doing solving someones problems (cost sensitive travelers) if they are even in business and growing the way they have. Are there laws that go after the demand side (cost sensitive travelers)? It seems like the laws now are only on the supply side (renters who illegally list) and if that is the case, I question what those current alternatives are. What are they, and why aren't people using them?
>And going after demand requires much less harsh measures. Fining the renter $200 a day plus a court appearance significantly shifts the value proposition if there is a substantial risk of being caught. On the other hand, the owner can roll small fines and attorney fees into the rents they collect.
Aren't renters (people who list) the supply side if your looking at it from airbnb's perspective, and who has the incentive to do that now? Not airbnb, and evidently not even the managers, because the current "solution" for them is to whine to the government.
Should your neighbors receive a benefit from everything you do in the privacy of your own home?
Can you name one specific incident that airbnb has caused to you and therefore merits your hatred? I doubt it.
They get it and they don't agree with you. To understand why, make a list of all the benefits which typically accrue to a family living next door to an AirBnB rental.
> "You let strangers stay in your apartment? Are you nuts?"
which ignores the various mechanisms airbnb has in place to deal with these problems (reputation, insurance, etc) along with the fact that quantifying, buying, and selling risk are problems that the modern economy is good at solving in general (i.e. if there's a shortcoming in airbnb's current approach to risk, they have a decent shot at fixing it).
But then someone in my building (NYC) starting hosting. It really did have a serious impact on my quality of life and on the maintenance cost of the building. Lots of stuff in the public spaces were destroyed, loud roof parties on weeknights etc. It fully converted me to absolutely hating Airbnb.
I take issue with Airbnb because they operate from a place of both knowledge and leadership. They know that this is illegal, they have the tools to easily detect it, and yet they do zero to either enforce the law, or advise their members. Members that Airbnb organized into a marketplace they now run.
I understand they are trying to change the law, but I am strongly not in favor of changing said law, based on how it has already directly impacted my life.
To preempt what I imagine will be a response to this question, which is that these users are violating the TOS with Airbnb, I have two points: the first is that Airbnb itself is violating many "TOSs" - laws - so it doesn't give them very good moral standing here.
The second point is stronger (I think), which is that Airbnb's position here is logically inconsistent. They either believe strongly that you should be able to do what you want with the properties you own, or you don't. I simply don't see why it matters if N=1 or N=10 (put differently, N=1 is not a special case that deserves being considered differently).
Because there is a narrative to this story that AirBnb wants to portray, which may help them in their legal battles. It's the same reason why they call themselves part of the "sharing economy" - they're trying rub a grassroots, everyman shine all over the company, deservedly or otherwise.
Large, organized, professional operations run counter to this narrative. The story is supposed to be about helping the average Joe make ends meet, expect a lot of PR focus on working-class families, students, and the empowering effect of AirBnb income. Expect things that run counter to this narrative to be downplayed or eliminated.
Selfish? Sure. So is every other corporation on the planet.
I do think AirBnb should have been screening things better in the first place to prevent things from getting to this point. However, I'm sure that would have really slammed the breaks on their business model's growth.
Say that I sell pot on Etsy (which is illegal in NYC). Do I have a valid cause for complaining when Etsy shuts down my illegal business?
In the AirBnB case, the company deserves to be fined for knowing that 13% of their available listings are illegal and not trying to actively stop the offenses. The people profiting off the criminal behaviors deserve nothing.
Airbnb continues to exceed my expectations, I shouldn't let all the drama in the news get to me.
[SpongebobCueCard]One Day Later[/SpongebobCueCard]
Man, that Smith family sure has a lot of listings!
When the lease on my NYC apt expired 2.5 years ago, I've kept the apartment and been subletting on AirBNB 100% of the time. A couple of months into it, I've automated this to a point where I was making ~ $1-1.5K/month after all expenses, and spending ~ 2 hours a month on it, so I considered getting some more apartments and scaling the operation.
I'm very glad that I didn't. My lease expires in a couple of weeks and I'm not renewing it. I'm deleting the listing, and my highly-ranked (consistently top 3 in searches for my neighborhood) account from the site forever.
I'm thankful to AirBNB for the opportunity to let me do this, but it's become very clear early on that AirBNB doesn't care about its hosts, only about their own company. Those people invested a ton of time, money and efforts into building a viable business model on AirBNB - and now they're royally fucked. I'm glad I'm not one of them, but this is a really shitty move by AirBNB.
"building a viable business model on AirBNB" Well that's kind of a grey area. It's viable as long as the city government doesn't get wind of it (there's a reason you're posting anonymously). It's viable as long as a landlord doesn't get wind of it, or a condo association. That's about as viable as any other "legal grey area" business is.
Property owners of NYC purchased condos and co-ops with the understanding that they were buying a residential property ... not a hotel with transient occupants. What's your argument that their residentially zoned property should be converted to a mixed-use property? What impact do you think that would have on their property value?
I'm saying that instead of complaining about being forced out of business, realize that there are reasons for it--talking to friends/coworkers/neighbors/etc can be enlightening for everyone. Maybe understand that a friend Joe doesn't want to have his 2 young children be surrounded by complete strangers who change daily by talking to him. Maybe in that way a political middle-ground can be found. That's all I'm saying.