Airbnb To Hand Over Data On 124 Hosts To New York Attorney General 149
Peer-to-peer lodging service Airbnb has agreed to hand over data on 124 of its hosts in New York as part of an investigation by the state's Attorney General into the operation of illegal hotels. The AG first requested data for almost all of Airbnb's hosts in the state, but after "legal wrangling," that number was whittled down to the current 124. The data in question will be unredacted personal information, meaning names and addresses. In a blog post, Airbnb's David Hantman said, "nothing about these hosting profiles suggests [the Attorney General] is after anyone but individuals who may be flagrantly misusing our platform." Airbnb is confident that the targets of this request are hosts considered to be "bad actors," but they don't explain what classifies somebody as a "bad actor."
Definition of "bad actor" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's whoever we say and whoever doesn't have the means to buy us.
Re:Definition of "bad actor" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's basically just politicians who are kowtowing to an industry that doesn't want more competition than it already has.
Re:Definition of "bad actor" (Score:5, Insightful)
They're "kowtowing" to an industry that has to follow regulations and therefore feels at an unfair disadvantage to players that eschew regulations (fire safety, hygiene, registration requirements, etc.). With that perspective, it should be easy to see who the bad actors are in principle: People who run hotels without following the regulations under the disguise of renting out rooms in their homes. It says as much in the blurb. There certainly is a gray area, but 124 hosts in NYC looks like they're only going after obvious cases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fire safety, hygiene and registration requirements are "not applicable" if you're running a small hotel? We're not talking about amenities like spa, wifi and a 24h reception. You can't put your guests in danger just so you can "get in at the ground floor" and compete with "real" hotels.
Re:Definition of "bad actor" (Score:5, Informative)
I went to a meeting where I actually heard my local New York State assembly member, Dick Gottfried, and one from the neighboring district, Linda Rosenthal, denounce Airbnb.
They said that they had never seen lobbying like that before. Everywhere you go in the state capital, you find Airbnb lobbyists. They have a massive lobbying effort.
I told them that we were discussing it on Slashdot and I asked them to elaborate on exactly why Airbnb was wrong.
First, they explained, you could always rent out a room in your home -- but you had to stay there. What you can't do is rent your apartment and leave. That's the housing law. (But most leases say that you have to get permission from your landlord to sublet.)
The big problem is that landlords are deciding to let apartments go vacant rather than rent them to traditional long-term tenants with leases. Instead, they're renting out apartments through Airbnb, and making much more money, as de facto hotels. We have many regulations for hotels, most of them put in for good reason, and they're ignoring the regulations.
Tenants don't like Airbnb because they reduce the rental housing stock. Landlords won't rent to tenants if they can make more from Airbnb. Furthermore, tenants don't like the heavy traffic of anonymous strangers coming in to their building. (Airbnb rentals are popular among prostitutes, or more properly, commercial sex workers.)
In effect, if you visit New York City for a week, Airbnb is cheaper. However, if you want to live in New York City, Airbnb would make it harder for you to find permanent housing.
One of our biggest problems in New York City is that housing is too expensive. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08... [nytimes.com]
In New York City, most of us believe that poor and working-class people should be able to live here, because it offers them a way up. That's our values. In Houston or Atlanta you have other values. That's your privilege.
We've worked out ways to do it, including rent control, public housing, and housing subsidies. It's not the perfect solution, but it works. Airbnb would disrupt this system. Retired people were paying $500 a month for a subsidized apartment and subletting it for $200 a night. Taxpayers don't want their subsidies to go for that.
You may believe that the free market is a panacea that solves all problems. You may believe that we have a moral obligation to have a free market. In New York, we believe that everybody is entitled to his opinion. However, lots of people who don't understand how things work here come to New York and try to sell us on some new scheme. People like that don't usually get far in New York. I hear they have problems elsewhere too.
Re: (Score:2)
One of our biggest problems in New York City is that housing is too expensive.
While a lot of your other complaints are legitimate, this one is not. When you live in a place like New York, you are making a conscious choice to live in what is perhaps the most expensive place in the US to live. It's a simple supply vs demand parable. The higher the demand, the more you pay. New York is a very high demand place to live.
That said, you can't just decide to live in one of the most in demand places to live, mingle with the global elite, and then expect to not have to make any sacrifices in d
Re: (Score:2)
You are making assumptions that seem obvious to you, but don't seem obvious to me, and in fact I disagree with them. And many people in New York City disagree with them.
First, I have to live in New York City.
In my (rent-subsidized) building, I live with artists, writers, musicians, theater people. Most of us are moderately successful, and we could never have careers like this outside of New York City. There is something called the "chance meeting at Zabar's effect." For example, I just heard about a profess
Re: (Score:2)
First, I have to live in New York City.
No, you don't. I don't care what your career is; there are plenty of other places to do it. For example, "artísts" of the type you describe do extremely well in Las Vegas, which is a MUCH cheaper place to live.
Second, we (us voters) have a sense of ownership.
What you describe isn't a sense of ownership. Not at all. It's a sense of entitlement.
How would you feel if somebody who was richer than you decided he wanted your house, and kicked you out under eminent domain?
You never owned it to begin with.
Essentially what all of this comes down to is that because of some combination of your job and who you are, you feel you're somehow special and deserve that kind of living more t
Re: (Score:2)
First, I have to live in New York City.
No, you don't. I don't care what your career is; there are plenty of other places to do it. For example, "artísts" of the type you describe do extremely well in Las Vegas, which is a MUCH cheaper place to live.
You're suggesting that I live in a state where it is illegal for a mathematician to go into a casino and win a lot of money, by following all the rules of the game, if he's too good at it? No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of places; Vegas is merely one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to run my career based on the advice of a free-market ideologue, who doesn't even know what I do.
The conservatives don't care about principles or logic. If they can pack the Supreme Court, and legislate from the bench, they'll do it. If they can contract with their employees for retirement income, and break the contract, they'll do it.
We can't reason with these people. The only thing they understand is power. All we can do is organize to get the votes to make a better society. In New York City
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not telling you how to run your career, I'm just telling you that there's more to life than New York. If you want to live paycheck to paycheck needlessly, be my guest.
But know this: You have no right to name your own price for anybody else's resources any more than they have a right to name their price for yours. Labor, too, is a resource.
Avoid New York (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I see a story like this or the problems Tesla has in NY, I can't help but think of the "New York is open for business" commercials flooded on the TV news channels. One of the most taxed and regulated states in the nation claiming to be business friendly.
Fuck Noo Yawk.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I see a story like this or the problems Tesla has in NY, I can't help but think of the "New York is open for business" commercials flooded on the TV news channels.
New York is well known for its tradition of aggressive Attorney Generals and
that State has done more for consumer protection than most States' AGs combined.
Your complaints (Tesla, Airbnb) are with the existing laws, not the AG who makes sure they are enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but think of the "New York is open for business" commercials flooded on the TV news channels
States that are truly that don't have to run ads, so proclaiming.
Re:Avoid New York (Score:5, Informative)
*cough* your AG is a Democrat.
*cough* your state legislature has a massive Democrat majority (~110 out of 150 members) in the Assembly, and a tiny Republican majority (32 out of 63 members?) in the Senate.
*cough* your Governer is a Democrat.
Yes, tell us more about how those evil Republicans are crushing your poor widdle throats with anti-competitive laws and enforcement.
You're a hoot.
Just what constitutes a bad actor? (Score:3)
I know of one actual Bed and Breakfast that takes in normal clients through one set of ads, and runs other ads in BDSM magazines and such and serves as a dungeon for that clientel. They apparently rely on not scheduling people who don't know what's in the basement at the same time as those who do or something like that - maybe weekends are for whipsters. Is it possible this counts as a "bad actor"?
Or what about people who are subletting property they only rent, against their rental agreement? Not that that's right, but I could certainly see the New York state authorities focusing only on those cases and ignoring a lot of owner landlords who rent out unsafe property, or worse, the ones who use goons to frighten or actually beat people who are protected from price increases by rent control, to force them to break their leases and free the property to be rented at a higher rate. Leaning on little old ladies is a pretty blatent kind of 'bad acting", but is it even on the radar in this case, or is it all about getting the low hanging fruit of renters who generally can't afford lawyers rather than landlords who can?.
Re: (Score:2)
New slogan! (Score:3)
I think you may have just hit on the next advertising masterpiece:
I expect a roach free room and a mechanically sound taxi.
For everyone else, there's Lyft and AirBNB.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just arbitrage taking care of market inefficiencies in the form of government-mandated rent control. If the rent were at market value the profit made from renting it out (less operating expenses) would be nearly a wash.
An efficient market isn't the most important thing in the world.
If we had a free market in housing in New York City, the middle class and certainly the poor couldn't have lived here over the last 60 years.
We have certain values in New York City. We want to live in a town with rich and poor. We want an actor or artist from the midwest or China to be able to come to New York City and find a place to live. We want a teacher who's been living in an apartment for 30 years to be able to stay there at the same ren
Thank you, big government... (Score:1, Interesting)
...for establishing a system of competition based on government regulation rather than quality of goods and services. I'm sure harassing 124 small time hosts will help the big players, who line the pockets of politicians with contributions, scare off hundreds more. And of course, since New York has no other crimes to look into, this is a perfectly prioritized use of limited prosecutorial resources. /sarc
First we had the #warondrugs, now we have the #waronunlicensedhotels?
It's about hotel taxes (Score:4, Informative)
I believe it's essentially about someone running what is essentially a hotel without paying the taxes that hotels are supposed to pay.
See http://www.balloon-juice.com/2... [balloon-juice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
well yes, it's about that.
which makes the debate more about if a room for rent -literally- is a hotel - and why it's not a hotel if the guest stays for a month..
Re: (Score:3)
well yes, it's about that.
which makes the debate more about if a room for rent -literally- is a hotel - and why it's not a hotel if the guest stays for a month..
How about the simple fact that most tourists staying in a place for just a few days usually won't bother to go to authorities if there is something wrong with their rooms? As such, to protect the reputation of a city, they have to regulate the hotels that primarily target tourists?
If you are going to stay in the same place for a month or more, it is likely you will find out anything wrong in the first week, and you would more likely report it to police as you still have to stay for weeks there. Plus, peop
Re: (Score:2)
Provided you don't get Carbon Monoxide poisoning from a faulty heating system for example. In England, I know that if there is a problem with that, I contact the local council's Environmental Health department, not the police, if there is a problem with that. I've no idea what the rules are in other countries were I go on holiday.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what it's about, and that's what it should be about.
Pay your taxes. Stop trying to invent clever ways to avoid taxes. When you do that, you are fucking me, and I don't appreciate it, and it makes me support a heavy-handed government. If you don't like heavy-handed government then stop being a tax cheat.
There are no bad actors (Score:1)
at the Bates Hotel
It's not about taxes (Score:2, Insightful)
During the last year of negotiations with the NY AG (Eric Schneiderman), AirBnB offered to remit taxes on the hosts' behalf, as they have done in other markets (such as San Francisco). The AG rejected this proposal. Why? Because it's not about taxes, it's about killing any possible competition the large hotels in NYC face. In fact, Schneiderman has surrounded himself with people who have heavy ties to the hotel industry, and has accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from hotel lobb
Look back to why the laws were there originally (Score:4, Interesting)
Vast generalization here (I'm not a legal scholar)- but it looks like laws have been put in place to 1) encourage something viewed as good by the legislature or 2) discourage something viewed as bad by the legislature. What is viewed as "good" or "bad" is up to the legislator, the folks that the elected the legislator, the folks that the legislator represents, and most important to our current system of campaign finance, the folks that pay for the legislator's campaign. Airbnb is ostensibly a mechanism to allow people to profit from use underutilized space. Unfortunately some of the underutilized space is contained in clauses in lease agreements that the Airbnb hosts chose to ignore.
The hotel laws were put in place because of abuses. Rent control was put in place because of abuses and to encourage affordable housing. The "bad actors" are those that are abusing the system at the potential risk to their customers- and they are customers, not guests. Because of the immense amount of money moving around, there will be abuses and bargains. Leave it up to a company to determine the bad actors, and they will invariably call out those that pose the greatest risk- and since it is a profit driven company, risk is about money, with no consideration given to public welfare (ostensibly the government's arena).
NYC Resident Here (Score:5, Informative)
People forget that there is another side here - the NYC resident. Consider that there's likely several people within 20 feet of me at any given time - this is the reality of big city living.
What AirBnB means to me is a diminished quality of life.
It means "guests" rolling in at 2am, feeling the need to open and close every door and cupboard (and waking up my household). Ringing my bell accidentally at all hours. Using AirBnB to find one-night party space. Smoking everywhere.
This is all from one apartment directly above me. If I complain to NYC, it means that they're sued to death and evicted (which I'm sorely tempted to do, but the punishment is very harsh). If I don't, I have to live in a noisier, less enjoyable circumstance.
And yes, I've taken the time to ask the folks upstairs to be more considerate. Their response? "It's our right", even though it's against the law.
AirBnB sucks.
Re:NYC Resident Here (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Do nothing,
2. Ask them to stop again (politely, with or without warning about going to authorities),
3. Ask them to stop again (not politely, with or without warning about going to authorities), and
4. Go straight to the authorities.
My recommendation? Go straight to the authorities. You've been polite, and you do not deserve to suffer as they benefit. Make no mistake, the only reason they are doing AirBNB is to profit. You have every right not to suffer a 'diminished quality of life' (as you, very succinctly I must say, put it) just so they can put an extra, what...$30 a day(?) in their pocket.
Strictly speaking, anyone operating an AirBNB rental is operating a business. They are providing a service/resource to those who are willing to pay. Is an expense to that business paying the people around him to allow him to do so? Maybe (we as a society seem to endorse the idea of a 'money to QoL' ratio). So, my next question is this: is Mr. Ignorant claiming that income on his income tax? I imagine not. That might be more legal leverage you have in this case. (Side note: little do most people know that if you legitimize a business, a huge array of tax incentives start rolling in (proportionally expense your Internet, heating, electricity, computers, vehicle, etc).
I wish you the best of luck in your quest.
Re:NYC Resident Here (Score:4)
You could always exploit the review system of airbnb to force a change.
Whenever their guests are quiet you can flip the tables and go knock on their door at midnight. Tell them "[landlord's name] said you've have shit ready for me". Once they get a few reviews of "Strange people show up in the middle of the night maybe trying to buy drugs" it should in theory sort itself out :)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the best idea. OP, please do this and report back on your success.
Re: (Score:2)
"If they can't afford to pay for the costs they impose on others then they have no right to operate a business at all."
I can tell you aren't a Republican! Me, neither.
Re: (Score:2)
You told them to stop breaking the law because it inconveniences you, and they said "it's our right"? Seriously? Given that situation, my response would have been "Oh, gosh, I'm sorry, I thought it wasn't your right at all. I'll call the Hotel Commission just to verify you are right. Here, I'll do it while you wait..."
Re: (Score:2)
This is all from one apartment directly above me. If I complain to NYC, it means that they're sued to death and evicted (which I'm sorely tempted to do, but the punishment is very harsh). If I don't, I have to live in a noisier, less enjoyable circumstance.
And yes, I've taken the time to ask the folks upstairs to be more considerate. Their response? "It's our right", even though it's against the law.
AirBnB sucks.
I have dealt with neighbor problems in a Breakfast-at-Tiffany's type New York City apartment building, and those neighbors included several musicians and a dimwit upstairs whose bathtub kept overflowing. I'm not so quiet myself, and I often work late. We usually managed to work everything out.
One guy was an asshole. I tried to talk to him, the landlord tried to talk to him, but he just wanted to do things his way. I felt the way you do about calling in the authorities, but finally I reached the last straw.
Re:Of course they'll downplay it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
depends on the situation. There is government being overly strict/arseholes, then there is government doing what it is supposed to do, which is ensuring hotels are all following the regulations required for hotels. If they are doing the former then it sucks, but I suspect it is the later they are chasing. I personally find it hard to fault them if what they are doing is chasing people that are blatantly ignoring the laws for insurance, health and safety etc when it comes to hotel accommodation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think
Re:Of course they'll downplay it.. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel?
As soon as money changes hands it is no longer a "private arrangement". When you charge for a place to stay you are now a hotel unless it is on a month to month basis then you have a roommate. If you are providing the same service as a hotel you are operating a hotel. It is not a "public safety" issue.
For example, someone renting an apartment but never living there and only renting short term through Airbnb is a bad actor. First, they are running a one room hotel with lower regulatory costs than a hotel. Second they are probably doing it against the lease. Third, they have little incentive to ensure that their tenants are following noise restrictions. Fourth, they are removing a rental apartment from a probably already tight rental market.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're describing the problems with big government regulation squeezing regular people. You're saying that if I make arrangements with someone to allow them to stay in a spare room and they give me $30 a night, I need to adhere to all regulations a full fledged hotel would have to. I say that, while what I'm doing may be illegal in the strictest sense, it shouldn't be - and adhering to the same regulations as a hotel in such a case is beyond ridiculous. I say that the scenario above SHOULD be a *pri
Re:Of course they'll downplay it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some who rent out a room in their home occasionally. With proper regulation that should be allowed. There are others who rent apartments specifically to rent out as a short term rental. These are the ones that need to comply with the complete hotel rules. Registered bed and breakfasts have to comply with ruled why shouldn't Airbnb poster have to comply with those regulations as well?
You're saying that if I make arrangements with someone to allow them to stay in a spare room and they give me $30 a night, I need to adhere to all regulations a full fledged hotel would have to.
Are you paying taxes on the income? Do you have adequate parking for that tenant?
Will you say a different story when someone is burned to death because there was no fire alarm system which a hotel is required to have but a private residence is not?
There are two different scenarios we are talking about; spare room rental and short term apartment sublet. The former should be allowed with minimal regulation. The latter needs to be watched very closely.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two different scenarios we are talking about; spare room rental and short term apartment sublet. The former should be allowed with minimal regulation. The latter needs to be watched very closely.
I agree with this completely.
Re: (Score:3)
Will you say a different story when someone is burned to death because there was no fire alarm system which a hotel is required to have but a private residence is not?
That's just a ridiculous argument. Apartment buildings are required to maintain fire alarm systems, have fire escapes, fire extinguishers, etc.
Unless you are saying the requirements for a hotel are safer, in which case why not regulate so that everyone can live in a fire safe dwelling?
Re:Of course they'll downplay it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you are saying the requirements for a hotel are safer, in which case why not regulate so that everyone can live in a fire safe dwelling?
The requirements for a hotel should be stricter. If you are renting a room for the night, you should not have to check the batteries in the fire alarm. If you have a three year lease on an apartment, it is reasonable for that to be your responsibility, rather than the landlords.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but in both cases you need a fire alarm, right? And in neither case is someone legally allowed to disable the alarm, right?
I still don't see any difference.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, but in both cases you need a fire alarm, right? And in neither case is someone legally allowed to disable the alarm, right?
I still don't see any difference.
From the post you're replying to:
The requirements for a hotel should be stricter. If you are renting a room for the night, you should not have to check the batteries in the fire alarm. If you have a three year lease on an apartment, it is reasonable for that to be your responsibility, rather than the landlords.
Add to that that hotels have mandatory annual inspections, with a fire inspector who walks through and checks all of the alarms and extinguishers. You don't do that in your apartment, I'm sure, and yet it's something a hotel tenant relies on.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah see that's something that wasn't said in the original post and you're taking bits and pieces of reality and making specious arguments based on them.
It's reasonable to say that, whereas with a rented apartment the tenant has certain things they need to do, a person renting a hotel room should have less of these given the transient nature of his renting.
So, while I buy my own toilet paper in my flat, for instance, I would be quite annoyed if I showed up at a hotel and they told me you have to buy your ow
Re: (Score:2)
If you are renting out your apartment short term like a hotel, you must maintain it. If you rent it out long term, like a flat, the tenant maintains it. But this is a separate issue, and in no instance is someone allowed an exception to the fire code.
If the short term rental is not licensed and regulated then what is there to guarantee that this maintenance is done? Also, many apartments are not required to have a sprinklers while almost all hotels are required to have them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this is based on building size not the fact that you're a hotel.
I lived in a tower in boston, and they had an integrated smoke detection system (don't burn something at 03:00 am you'll wake the neighbors), a fire marshal who checked everything was working on a regular basis, sprinklers, fire extinguishers in the hallway, etc.
A few days ago I was in London, and stayed in a B&B. It was an old building, and there might have been smoke detectors, but there wasn't a fire escape I could see,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure this is based on building size not the fact that you're a hotel.
Building age also makes a big difference. It may be impossible to bring older buildings up to code without destroying them.
Different jurisdictions also have different rules. An historic building in London may have different rules than a modern building in New York.
Re: (Score:2)
One major difference is that long term tenants know the building and can get out faster. Second long term tenants have the choice of installing alarms and sprinklers. Do you think the lack of sprinklers would be advertised on the Airbnb listing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how they run their business..
I have a small craft business and I am required to have a local license to sell in some craft shows. I think that room renters need to as well.
If they want to limit their selection of tenants by not having parking then that's their business.
Who makes sure that they "limit their selection of tenants" if they are not licensed or regulated.
But hotels shouldn't be required to have parking for tenants, especially in a place like New York city, where nobody drives anyway.
Many tourists from the North East try to. They drive in and park their vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
They are limiting their own selection of tenants by not providing a service that some of them may want. There's plenty of brick and mortar stores that don't have any parking. Why should hotels be required to have parking? If people want a hotel with parking they'll verify that it has parking before they book a room there.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of brick and mortar stores that don't have any parking.
They are in commercial areas and adjacent residential areas usually have "residents only" parking or short term parking limits. Most patrons of "brick and mortar stores" do not park overnight. The problem is that commercial parking is very different than residential parking.
If people want a hotel with parking they'll verify that it has parking before they book a room there.
When the poster states there is parking on the street and causes parking issues in a residential area there is an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So lets add to an already overcrowded situation by adding an unlicensed small hotel without parking to a residential area.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that if I make arrangements with someone to allow them to stay in a spare room and they give me $30 a night, I need to adhere to all regulations a full fledged hotel would have to.
In New York City, according to my state assemblyman, you're not violating the law if you make arrangements for someone to stay in a spare room for $30 a night. (Although you may be violating your lease.)
You're violating the law if you make arrangements for someone to stay in your apartment by themselves for $30 a night, and leave. You have to be there.
It is a public safety issue (Score:5, Informative)
This summary is inaccurate - it is a "public safety" issue. In the Nigel Warren case where he rented out his room on Airbnb [nytimes.com] in NYC, the judge levied a fine of fine of $2,400 [time.com] after ruling that they were operating an unlicensed hotel.
The law on which the decision was based, Bill S6873B-2009 [nysenate.gov] states:-
I.e. The reasoning given for the law was to protect public safety, specifically to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes.
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. The reasoning given for the law was to protect public safety, specifically to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes.
I have to say that my thought on this is 'Why?'. Why is the fire code stricter for a hotel than an apartment? I can see it if the density is higher - More people packed into a smaller space means that without taking extra measures evacuation will take more time. Such measures can mean things to slow fires down like sprinklers, fire walls and such as well as additional exits, larger hallways and fire escapes to accommodate more people. I can also see more signage - presumably everybody in an apartment co
Re: (Score:3)
Because transient residents are not intimately familiar with the fire escapes and layout of the building. Smoke compartments must be smaller, low-level exit signs are generally required (so someone can see them when crawling), and requirements for secondary exits are different. And... you must post a sign at the door indicating exit locations.
I am torn on the issue; in a place like San Francisco or NYC, the issue of taking units out of the rental pool is quite serious. This becomes worse where you have r
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI Fire deaths in New York City hit lowest number on record [nydailynews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
See, the rules work! ;)
On a serious note though, fire regulations are only one of many differences; accessibility, ventilation, energy all are different between long term and short term housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Because transient residents are not intimately familiar with the fire escapes and layout of the building.
I mentioned that... 'less so for short term dwellings'. Also, low level exit signs are good no matter what - even residents can get turned around in thick smoke.
Mandating fire codes that are less stringent for permanent lodging, where people are more often cooking than hotel/motel rooms, seems counterproductive.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as money changes hands it is no longer a "private arrangement".
Congratulations; you've just given the religious right all the authority they need to regulate abortion out of existence.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a Red Herring [wikipedia.org]. Considering the State knows about most abortions already how does this change things?
Re: (Score:3)
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think they're doing this from a perspective of public safety, I think we'd just have to disagree.
YES I do think they should abide by the same rules as in order for insurance to be valid and cover you they must also be following the rules. This is the reason I would never use Uber here in Australia as while an accident is unlikely I like knowing I am insured against such an event and in most Uber drivers sharing you are definitely NOT covered. Similiarly if I am paying for accommodation I want to know that they are meeting minimum health and safety requirements and also have appropriate insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes really. It has been stated by both the insurance industry and government in Australia that Uber drivers are NOT insured here unless they have a commercial license and corresponding commercial insurance as it is illegal to offer for hire services without a public transport license and insurance is invalid when you are operating outside the law
Sometimes yes (Score:2)
Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel?
In some cases the answer will be yes. If I found my out my neighbor had turned his house into a de-facto hotel, I would likely be pretty upset and rightly so. That potentially affects me and my property so you better believe I'm going to want a say in the matter. Furthermore there are various important liability, safety and taxation concerns that need to be addressed before any sane person should give a blanket go-ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
It stopped being a private arrangement when it started being facilitated by a 3rd party.
Better than uber, in this situation these people can easily squat and the home owner would have to go through the full eviction process ... Which means in some locations that you can't have them removed for at least 90 days! And no, changing the locks while they are out isn't legal either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't innovation to simply ignore local accommodation laws. If ignoring the law is innovation then I think a lot of people would like their prison sentences reduced as after all they were just innovating.
Re:Of course they'll downplay it.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because you think a law is "silly" does not mean that it is. All you are doing is giving a newcomer a financial advantage over established businesses. So when the new business harms the old business and can not handle the additional taxes and regulations when they are imposed you have less supply not more.
Re:Bad actors? (Score:5, Interesting)
No - there are always definitly easy to spot bad actors on such platforms. These can range from stupid assholes who want to rent out their garbage collection room, people who are acting like they ren something out in private, but in reality operate a full-scale business circumventing regulations and possibly taxes.
It seems that in NY there are 10000s of hosts. Figuring out the most criminal 1% of these has nothing to do with killing innovation but more wit doing a service to the customers (reputation for the hosts and safety for the customers).
Re: (Score:1)
It seems that in NY there are 10000s of hosts. Figuring out the most criminal 1% of these has nothing to do with killing innovation.
It has EVERYTHING to do with killing innovation. Think about it for a second, who benefits? The government
Re: (Score:3)
If that would be true, then lobyists who manage to reduce the competition by 1% probably would not be worth their money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a stupic calculation.
Preventing the worst 1% of market participatns from offering via a specific platform will never shift the market share of the whole market by 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Preventing the worst 1% of market participatns from offering via a specific platform will never shift the market share of the whole market by 1%.
No, but a regulation designed to affect 10 or 15 percent of the market participants, based on the action of this 1 percent, would have a great deal of affect on the whole Airbnb market.
People think businesses and CEO's only worry about short-term gains, but they aren't as stupid as you think. Consistent short-term gains require a long-term plan, and consistent gains are what's needed to build wealth.
Addressing potential problems (Score:5, Informative)
It has EVERYTHING to do with killing innovation. Think about it for a second, who benefits?
The (probably few) customers who don't get scammed by shady "hosts". The neighbors who don't have to put up with living next to a de-facto hotel which the property is almost certainly not zoned for. The taxing authorities and by extension the local citizens who are probably not receiving the benefits of tax revenue they would otherwise receive. The normal hotels and their employees who lose revenue they likely otherwise would have received.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it is necessarily good. I don't have a problem with Air Bnb and I actually do wish them the best of luck but just because they think their product is "innovative" doesn't automatically mean it is a good idea. I can see potential problems with the service that are serious and need to be addressed in a more adult way than screaming "KILLING INNOVATION" to anyone who will listen.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used Airbnb and never had a shady experience. Hosts have been friendly and hassle free. Places have been clean. I'm sure there are shady hosts out there but is it really so widespread?
Dangers of extrapolation (Score:2)
I've used Airbnb and never had a shady experience.
So clearly we can extrapolate from your experience that no one ever has had or will have a problem... [/sarcasm]
Look, most people probably will never have a problem because most people are decent law abiding sorts. Those aren't who we are worried about. It's the few really bad ones that hurt, steal from or defraud or otherwise harm someone. If your experiences have been great, that is wonderful but that doesn't mean it isn't worth worrying about both for the visitor and the host. If you want to take th
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the Air BnB customer feedback system take care of hosts who were "bad actors"?
It seems the government is only concerned about the bad actors from the standpoint of violation of their tax and monopoly preservation regulations.
If a housing unit is safe for rental for the long term, it should be safe for short term guests so I doubt that there are any genuine safety concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the Air BnB customer feedback system take care of hosts who were "bad actors"?
Not necessarily and only after the fact. A hotel chain has a reputation to maintain and generally they are operating as ongoing concerns. AirBnB users (both guests and renters) are under no such long term pressures.
It seems the government is only concerned about the bad actors from the standpoint of violation of their tax and monopoly preservation regulations.
I think that is overly cynical. The government and its elected officials generally do care that the people under their care are safe and happy, even if their ultimate motivation is just to get re-elected rather than some deep level of humanity. And a government being concerned about attempts
Re: (Score:2)
"Not necessarily and only after the fact. A hotel chain has a reputation to maintain and generally they are operating as ongoing concerns. AirBnB users (both guests and renters) are under no such long term pressures."
So... AirBnB renters are just in it for one rental? I find it hard to believe that a renter would only be interested in renting their place one time and not be concerned about renting it again the next week.
"If someone is considering a long term stay, chances are they are going to look
Re:Addressing potential problems (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had one negative experience with AirBnB. It wasn't terrible, more disorganized than dangerous, and it's only one out of over a dozen excellent experiences, but that sounds about right: a very small percentage of problems. 124 in New York City also sounds about right for the worst-of-the-worst.
In other words: no, not widespread, but if you can eliminate the few bad actors it increases overall confidence in the system. And if it decreases slightly the hostility from the industry they're trying to displace, it's better for the customer. The only losers in that are those who have been bad, and I just don't see anything wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are shady hosts out there but is it really so widespread?
Who said anything is widespread? The disclosure being requested here affects less than 1% of the airbnb service providers in NY. If only 1% of them are "shady" you'd be highly unlikely to have seen them unless you used the service a lot.
Re:Bad actors? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Most people don't want a motel to pop up next door. By that I mean they don't want you renting out your house in the neighborhood to random people. Ask a few homeowners what they think about someone turning their neighbors house into a rental (and that's medium term).
2. Most people don't want an actual motel within a mile or more of them. Again, it represents passers through. Also motels are notorious for crime and housing some unfavorable types, depending on the location, scale, and many other factors. But people fear the worst.
Okay, that's all I could come up with.
Re: (Score:2)
A house is your private property to do with as you see fit, including renting it out to whomever you wish. If you are worried about that sort of thing, live somewhere with a HOA.
Re:Bad actors? (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be argued that bylaws and residential restrictions are a form of HOA.. It really should be "if you want to do whatever you want with your own property, live out in the country" but even in the country, there are rules about what you can and can't do. As long as you live near other people and services, there are valid restrictions about what you can and can't do with your private property. Suck it up, buttercup.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's entirely untrue. You may wish it were, but it is not. I don't have an HOA at my house but there are myriad laws (federal, state & local) which restrict what I can and can't do in and to my house.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy storing radioactive waste in my backyard. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
Re:Bad actors? (Score:5, Insightful)
What innovation? Renting out your room or apartment is not new or innovative. Connecting supply and demand using the Internet is not new or innovative. What's innovative about AirBnB and Uber and the likes is figuring out how to do something blatantly illegal to gain a competitive advantage over legitimate businesses that do follow rules and regulations (which in many cases exist for very good reasons), without getting immediately shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, yes, "legitimate businesses" in the Fat Tony sense. Legitimate businesses that long ago used those rules and regulations to put competition out of business.
Re: (Score:1)
Go fuck yourself with your spam links.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing my last comment lost a point due to some sockpuppet mod account of yours. So let me repeat it: "Go fuck yourself with your spam links." I can do this all you like. Get fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
The referenced domain lists usman_khalid143@yahoo.com [mailto] in its contact information. I wonder how long that email account will stay live.
Re: (Score:1)
So, they are Economic Heroes, satisfying a need in a market as all free people are free to do.
I am sure they will conjur some other reason, like they didn't bribe inspectors his month like everybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points for this. This is exactly the situation that crosses over. The idea of AirBNB was you rent out your personal, surplus space. If you've got more than a single living unit on an ongoing basis, it's not surplus private living space.