Comment by RBerenguel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RBerenguel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is, they are helping people break the law (the fine is for advertising illegal touristic rents) If someone rents a place repeatedly (for vacationing) they need a permit (which includes checking the place for safety measures, specially for the tenant) as well as paying another type of taxes. Likewise for longer than 30 days renting: for this the place has to be a for-rent place, registered somewhere else. The government is just asking AirBnb to follow the law, advertising only legal places that have their stuff in-place.

Not only that, but it's hard to know if AirBnb hosts are declaring their taxes properly (AirBnb could enforce this, though.)

As a Spaniard, I like seeing some disruption in areas that need it, and promoting leasing/rentings definitely needs it. But as a freelancer who pays quite a lot in taxes, it boils my blood that so many people (including most government officials, granted) try to game the system.

As for the quote, I can't find it anywhere in local sources, neither did I hear it yesterday when the officials appeared on news. So, it's probably a writer error, meant to be and.

Google is helping anybody who Googles how to do something illegal break the law. Should we fine them as well? There are dozens if not hundreds of other web sites that let you advertise vacation rentals in Europe. Are they also receiving such ultimata? My qualms with the regulatory efforts underway in Europe re: Google, Amazon, AirBnb, Uber, etc. are that they do not seem to be driven by any sort of guiding principle other than protectionist aversion to American companies succeeding in the European marketplace. Protectionism isn't inherently bad but let's call a spade a spade.

They are also fining European companies doing similar things (see Blablacar.)

> Are they also receiving such ultimata?

Does a substantial percentage of their advertisers break the law by not having the appropriate licenses required in their countries? If no, then they shouldn't be receiving any ultimatums.

(the answer to that question, by the way, is "no" for most of these sites, as most of them are simply affiliates / marketing partners for a handful of companies that have, decades of history of dealing with the regulations properly when representing the property owners; I'm sure there are exceptions here and there, especially for smaller/newer operators)

You may not see this as "driven by any sort of guiding principle other than protectionist aversion", but a lot of others see this as driven by the respective organs duty to uphold various consumer protection laws.

It's amazing how society will always have it's shadow over you. I work my butt off to buy a home, my own piece of land but I have to ask the government permission for who to let stay on my land for a certain period of time.

Most people own land on a fee simple basis (in England, the Crown holds the allodial title), but that's another discussion.

I've used airbnb in many European cities where the rentals are invariably converted apartments in dense buildings (i.e. 30-200 apartments) in a residential neighbourhood. It's completely different to letting out a farm house on an estate in the middle of no where. Respect for your neighbours (tenant and owner alike) in such communities is paramount.

Land "ownership" has no basis in natural law since it's a formalization of violence (all private land was either taken from someone else, or declared to be owned by threatening newcomers with violence). You can't own land the way you can own the fruit of your labor, so all land ownership is contingent on the consent of the community.

That doesn't mean that the community shouldn't simply decide to actually grant full property rights to whoever is deemed to have the title.

You don't need to rely on nonsense like "natural rights" to oppose the government-granted licensing system.

(You should also not assume I support full property rights)

The community could, but the community won't in most cases for the simple reason that most communities find it incredibly damaging to neighbours to let people do whatever they want on "their" property.

If I were to, for example, start a 24/7 brothel in my terraced suburban house, complete with front garden strip show set to loud music and light show, it would have tremendous negative effects on my neighbours.

Your example isn't relevant. Full property rights doesn't mean you can blast your neighbors with loud music and bright lights; after all, they would have full property rights as well, which would be affected by that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

You don't need the consent of the community to declare land as your own. There are other moral systems and ideas to the ones you specify. Just putting it out there, you know.

Maybe, but certainly very little land in the United States wasn't taken from someone at the wrong end of a rifle.

You are aware that you could never own that land, or a house without the government.

How exactly do you propose land registration would work, when it's not backed up by a government guarantee?

I would absolutely love to get my hands on a bulk, machine-readable version of Catalunya's laws. To see what other sort of crazy laws they have to deal with. The law is the one dataset that seems to have frequent relevance everywhere but no one seems to ever have it..

Am I taking it from this comment that you think this particular law is crazy?

I don't know the details of it, but at a basic level, only being allowed to rent places that have had some kind of safety inspection doesn't seem that ludicrous to me.

Or it's an opportunity.

"You can live in your house, raise kids in your house, but maybe it's too dangerous to let you rent it to tourists". Seriously?

It looks like the kind of nonsense governments use when they want to bar you from some freedom isn't it? They put a discouraging administrative burden on you.

If you own it you probably had it inspected before you bought it and you can make changes to ensure it is safe. You can ensure changes are done safely and get them checked if you want to. You have personal liberty.

When you rent it there are minimum standards, renters are often in a weak position to get things fixed and for short term rents the renter is arriving blind with possibly no opportunity to change plans if they recognise there are safety issues even if they have the skills to identify them.

As a renter, I don't mind. For those who do, there's a simple solution: the State can have it inspected at request and grant a certification, so that renters can be assured before committing.

Of course, that's if the law was actually intended to protect the renters.

Sure, but do you think this kind of inspection actually works? At least here in France, we hear many times a year in the media about cases where rented places are a total dangerous mess, all in spite of regulation.

When people are OK to break the law, they do it big time usually, so adding laws puts the burden on honest people more than dishonest ones...

In France, when you want to lend your house, you must have it tested for energetic efficiency. Mine (which I rent) was rated "A", which means best efficiency... Except I have all heaters on max setting in the winter. The administrative burden and high cost is on all of us, with no guarantee, plus you don't sue for higher than expected heating costs.

But without some inspection scheme would there be more bad or borderline cases? The existence of some outrageous cases doesn't prove that the law is useless. (I know I haven't proved that the law is useful either).

Also the failure to have the inspection might be easier to prosecute and show was deliberate than particular safety breaches.

If there's anything obviously wrong with the place they'll get shitty ratings and won't make any money.

As for non-obvious safety issues I'm willing to increase my chances of injury or death by 0.0001% or whatever by visiting some guy's house without a government inspection and I think most people would agree. Staying at an AirBnB is probably the least dangerous part of any given trip.

I won't contend that it raises the bar from you from doing something. But it also ensures it is safe for the tourist/tenant.

I don't see the point of mentioning the "kids" part in your message. I can live in my house, I can keep it incredibly unsafe at that, and raise kids (because they are a kind of legal extension of my person, up until social care is aware of it.) But as soon as you are letting other people in, safety measures improve the quality for all involved. I'd rather visit a city where I knew places I'm likely to stay are safe and checked.

I'll just trust AirBnB's comments of previous renters more than any regulation. Even more so in a bureaucratic country!

When you bought it, you will presumably have checked it out and (at least in my country) had had a survey which will cover basic safety. You will also have every opportunity to fix any dangerous issues whilst living there. It's your active choice to fix, or to ignore, any of these.

As a short term renter, you will be agreeing sight unseen to live there for a period of time, and will have no opportunity to fix it during your stay. You have absolutely no control over the safety of the property, and are relying on some third party to provide you with a level of comfort about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com