Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Airbnb Has Sued Its Hometown Of San Francisco (cnn.com) 242

Robert Mclean, reporting for CNN:Airbnb is taking its hometown to federal court. The company has filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco, objecting to short-term rental rule changes approved by its Board of Supervisors. A new ordinance set to take effect in late July would require all Airbnb hosts to register with the city. If they do not, Airbnb would be fined up to $1,000 a day for each listing, putting the burden on the company to make sure each listing is legal. But the city's $50 registration process is analog enough to turn off many hosts. It can't be completed online and requires submitting all the documents in person. Airbnb contends the new rule violates the Communications Decency Act, Stored Communications Act and the First Amendment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airbnb Has Sued Its Hometown Of San Francisco

Comments Filter:
  • Frivilous Law Suit (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:25PM (#52407131)

    Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb must adapt its business model otherwise they are simply externalizing the costs associated with fraud after they neglect due diligence in verifying the legality of their listings. Inevitably this is more about publicizing that SF relies on a paper process, but the paper process has several advantages in terms of forcing residents to be local in order to rent out their property without actually rezoning it as a hotel or rental property and paying appropriate fees to account for increased traffic and sewage volume, etc.

    • by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:29PM (#52407173)
      Most municipalities do not have the ability to submit registration forms on-line. Sack up and deal with it Airbnb. Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon but you are wasting tax payer money just to be a dick.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The point is that politicians in San Francisco are purposefully imposing onerous regulations on Airbnb because they're owned by the hotel and hospitality companies who want to throw as many roadblocks at Airbnb as they can.

        Just like the taxi companies and cab-driver unions and their pols did with Uber

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:43PM (#52407301)

          Uber IS a cab company.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The point is that politicians in San Francisco are purposefully imposing onerous regulations, Period

          This is the socialist utopia you all wished for. Now that you are familiar with the libertarian framework, exposed by the fast pace of the Internet (unregulated wasteland of Somalia), you are suddenly complaining about onerous regulations for the sake of incumbent businesses.

          FYI, they will dress it up in "safety and security" before too long, to make it more palatable. First rape, murder, assault or other crime is all that is needed (never mind that those things happen all the time in hotels and motels).

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:53PM (#52407375)

          Why do people keep trying to make this about the hotel industry? Airbnb is fucking up the entire real estate market which is already horrible enough in SF of all places. Landlords are turning apartments into hotel rooms to make a bit more money, reducing housing availability and driving up prices in a city that already has a desperate shortage of it.

          • by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @01:39PM (#52407739) Journal

            reducing housing availability and driving up prices in a city that already has a desperate shortage of it.

            Really? There's a black market for housing in San Francisco because people can't buy it on the open market for any price? (This is an objective sign of a true shortage, just ask Venezuela.)

            No, I think it's far more likely that the "shortage" is actually just your way of saying that the prices are higher than you think they ought to be.

            • Huh? That "objective sign" makes it clear there's a shortage of weed in most states. Which, I think, would be a hard case to make.

              Prices are higher than the people of SF think they should be because there is a finite resource (houses) being used for two different markets. It's entirely reasonable to want to discourage the use in one market to affect supply in the other.

          • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @01:47PM (#52407795)
            Have you asked yourself why that's happening?

            City laws prohibiting new development maintain the "desperate shortage" of housing. And city laws capping rents makes short-term rentals more lucrative than long-term rentals. The real estate markets were already fucked up there by those laws before Airbnb even existed.

            The market wants to fix it by adding more housing units but is prevented by laws prohibiting development. This causes prices to increase, which normally acts as an incentive for more development. Since the city doesn't want that, it caps rents. This doesn't make the problem go away though. All it does is shift the problem from one of price into one of availability - a lot more people want to live there than there is available housing. This results in a larger population of people wanting to live there but unable to. Which leads to more people wanting to visit. Which leads to more demand for short-term rentals like hotels and Airbnb.

            In other words, Airbnb is a symptom of meddling in the real estate market (by the local government). Not the cause as you're insinuating.
            • I don't doubt you are wrong and all, but just want to quible one logic point. Most of the this then thats you present makes sense except the people wanting to live there but unable to leading to more people wanting to visit. I'm not sure how that works? Or are you implying the visitors are not really visitors but are those people unable to live there posing as visitors?
              • Yeah, I noticed that too.

                I really wonder how many airBnB renters in SanFran aren't visitors, but instead are actually high-income workers who use this to find a place instead of actually renting a normal apartment. Someone getting paid $150k+ can probably afford that.

                Also, limited-term contracts are very common in the software world. I'm constantly getting emails from recruiters asking me to apply for 6-month or 12-month (and sometimes just 3-month) long contracts in various places around the country. If

            • We have the same problem in the major US city in which I live.

              The legal environment since the government reaction to the housing crisis has restricted availability of housing further and further. It's become more and more legally complicated, expensive, and risky to build or convert a structure for sales as individual units. Developers are choosing to turn everything into rental housing now. There's very little in the way of inventory of housing for purchase in the metro in desirable areas.

              The snake's eaten

            • You're making the assumption that a lottery like method (right place, right time) of finding housing is better than a bidding war. Those are facts very much not in evidence.

          • Why? I'd hazard for the same reasons that some vocal people keep defending Uber and attacking legal taxi services. Because someone said "disruptive technology"? Maybe because they're libertarian and like to see corporations giving the government the finger? I'm not really sure, but it has all of the same flavor.

            • by gmack ( 197796 )

              I defend Uber because I can pay online and have a car arrive wherever I am in 3-7 minutes. If I take a taxi I have to call, wait 15-30 minutes with no feedback about what is happening and then the driver will get all whiny if I want to pay by bank or credit card. So if I take a taxi, I have to plan ahead and have taken money from the bank machine before hand and also call a half hour in advance, making it useless for moments where I missed the bus and still want to arrive at work on time.

              • You have to wait 15-30 minutes for a cab?

                My wife and I were down to one car for a bit in northern NJ a couple years ago, and had to call for a cab a few times. It was nearly an hour for them to show up. And one of them didn't even use the taximeter, he just made up a charge on the spot.

                Then I found out about Uber and Lyft, installed them on my phone, and had a ride in 10 minutes or less for a fraction of the cost, and in far nicer cars too, with much less shady-looking drivers.

                • Oh, if they don't use the taximeter, I pay what I think is fair. What are they going to do?

                  Although, that's a huge boon for cabs over Uber. A cabbie is often willing to work off book, saving me money. Uber won't let them. Just make sure you agree on a price upfront.

          • by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @02:06PM (#52407953)
            There are a number of cities that rely on the tourism industry that are undergoing negative changes due to AirBnb.

            More rooms are available -> Hotels cant charge as much for rooms due to competition, and collect less taxes for the city. So the city has more tourists to support, but less tax revenue
            Real estate prices go up -> Long term residents have incentive to sell/rent, renters have incentive to live elsewhere

            It's similar to gentrification, but instead of replacing poor people with yuppies, its replacing residents with absentee landlords. There are increases in tourist dollars to local businesses, but less money from local residents. The overall effect is unhealthy for the city as a whole, since it drives residents away. Ultimately a city cant survive without locals who actually live in it.
            • I don't see the problem, or why the city needs to survive. In the case of SanFran at least, this is all the city government's doing anyway, because they refuse to allow any new construction. If there's such a shortage of housing, they need to be building high-rises. But they don't want to do that, so fuck 'em. Let the city die.

          • by ranton ( 36917 )

            Airbnb is fucking up the entire real estate market which is already horrible enough in SF of all places.

            Airbnb is not fucking up anything, it is doing its best to un-fuck an already horrible situation. The city could either allow more housing to be built or reduce the number of companies in the city through regulation and zoning. But they have chosen pricing controls which only make the problems much worse. Anything that brings prices back to equilibrium is a good thing.

          • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @03:43PM (#52408637)

            That's all the city's fault. There is a desperate shortage of housing in SF, and I personally hope it gets far, far, far worse.

            The shortage is caused by the government itself, and all the NIMBY regulations. If there's not enough rental units, then WHY are there no giant high-rise apartment buildings being built, like you see in other big cities? Because incumbent property owners don't want "the view" to be messed up. Well, if you refuse to build anything higher than 2 stories, then there's only so many apartments you can pack into a given space.

            I say let the housing market in SF implode. At some point, catastrophic change will be forced. If service workers can't live in SF, too bad: they don't have to! They can live somewhere else. And if that means they can't reasonably commute into SF to work, no problem! That means local SF business will have to go without workers, or they'll have to pay them six-figure salaries to come work there. If that means all the local businesses in SF (like grocery stores and restaurants) have to shut down, no problem. At some point, this will cause a complete implosion of the property values in the area (because whoTF wants to live in a city full of ultra-expensive housing and absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to shop or even get any food?), and change will be forced. The sooner, the better too.

      • Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon

        Funny, how a registration requirement is Ok with people sometimes, whereas at other times it is an intolerable "invasion of privacy". Papers, please...

      • Sack up and deal with it Airbnb

        So a company should comply with any regulation at all without complaint?

        That other companies should be able to impose regulations in order to capture the industry by excluding any possible competition?

        My take on it - any proposed regulation should identify a problem or opportunity*. There should be fairly solid numbers on the problem - IE X amount of criminal calls, complaints, accidents, and such per year. The regulation should identify how much it's expected to cost. There should be a metric to identif

        • by david_thornley ( 598059 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:57PM (#52407417)

          Some modern companies seem to complain excessively about regulations that people have been living with for years without complaint. We've seen Uber complain that their taxi service is sometimes regulated like a taxi service, requiring commercial driver's licenses, commercial insurance, and background checks (nobody's applying medallion limits to Uber).

          You seem to be saying that regulation shouldn't be applied when it's actually needed, but rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it. You're also calling for metrics that don't really exist. It's usually not possible to directly compare results with regulation and results without regulation over time. Consider background checks for taxi drivers: the idea is to reduce crime perpetrated by the drivers, but there really isn't much measurable other than how many people failed the check. In order to see if it reduces crime, it would be necessary to take some of the people failing the check and put them into cabs over a period of time and see how many passengers were crime victims.

          Life requires judgment calls. If you don't like the calls your elected representatives are making, campaign against them in elections. If you get no traction, then it may well be that everyone else is happy with the situation.

          • That's just a demonstration of ignorance.

            People have been complaining about how big city taxi services are regulated for longer than you have likely been alive. Not surprising when a hack medallion can cost over a million dollars, and the cabbies are little more than share croppers.

            Companies like Uber and Air BnB are lightning rods. They consolidate and focus the simmering discontent.

            • People have been complaining about how big city taxi services are regulated for longer than you have likely been alive.

              Some people complain about HOW they are regulated, but I've never heard anyone (except those who want to run rogue cab services on the cheap) complain that they ARE regulated in the first place. Yeah, a million dollars for a medallion is a valid complaint. That they need some kind of registration and overview is not.

              If you've never had a cab ride where you don't get told anything about the cost until you're at the destination and then find out it's amazingly ridiculous, thank the regulators. It's happened

              • If you've never had a cab ride where you don't get told anything about the cost until you're at the destination and then find out it's amazingly ridiculous, thank the regulators. It's happened to me, in places where cabs are less well regulated.

                Let me get this straight. You got into a car with a stranger, that didn't have a meter and you expected to be fairly treated ? Was it he just had an honest face ?

                "Didn't get told" ?? Well I am impressed at your assertiveness in asking how much something costs before you buy it.

                • Let me get this straight. You got into a car with a stranger, that didn't have a meter

                  Where did I say that?

                  I got in a car with "TAXI" all over the outside, with a meter, but yes, he was a stranger. Do you know the taxi drivers you meet when you leave the airport in a strange city and need a ride to a hotel? I sure don't. Him being a stranger is a REALLY GOOD reason for there to be regulation.

                  But I'll point out what you just said applies in spades to Uber drivers. Car, stranger, no meter ...

                  "Didn't get told" ?? Well I am impressed at your assertiveness in asking how much something costs before you buy it.

                  Most cab drivers, unless you're using a fixed route with a REGULATED fixed fare, can't tell you how

          • Some modern companies seem to complain excessively about regulations that people have been living with for years without complaint. We've seen Uber complain that their taxi service is sometimes regulated like a taxi service, requiring commercial driver's licenses, commercial insurance, and background checks (nobody's applying medallion limits to Uber).

            Most of that seems to be Uber and the city working out something reasonable. For example, from what I've heard Uber now carries commercial insurance for the drivers, does background checks about as good as what taxi drivers get*. Uber has a facility in NYC to help it's drivers get the licenses and permits required. I read the page on it, it seems that NY has 'numerous' levels of commercial driver's license, depending on if you're going to be a taxi, limo, truck, or bus driver.

            You seem to be saying that regulation shouldn't be applied when it's actually needed, but rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it.

            Okay, so let me ask, how do

            • or example, from what I've heard Uber now carries commercial insurance for the drivers, does background checks about as good as what taxi drivers get*

              Uber carries commercial insurance only when the customer is picked up. They don't bother when the app is just on and they're trolling for business. Which means they are uninsured at that time.

              Uber just left Austin because Austin insisted they perform the same background checks that taxi drivers get. Only UberBlack has those checks.

        • by reanjr ( 588767 )

          You've completely missed the purpose of the regulation. Airbnb is driving up housing costs because people are purchasing homes and then renting them continuously as hotels. The company is providing meaningful support for people to circumvent existing zoning laws. The regulations are an attempt to put a stop to that.

      • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon but you are wasting tax payer money just to be a dick.

        This is the company that tried to fight Proposition F by putting up ads in bus stops claiming San Francisco should essentially thank AirBnB for doing business there, because AirBnB's taxes were helping keep libraries and parks open.* So apparently AirBnB doesn't have to try too hard to be a dick.

        * As someone on social media rightly pointed out, if AirBnB loves libraries so much, it could have skipped the $8 million it spent lobbying against the new law and donated $8 million to the library system instead.

    • Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb must adapt its business model

      What if the City of San Francisco required renters to also register their social media accounts with the City Hall — a government's attempt we roundly condemned just yesterday [slashdot.org]?

      How is this requirement to register different in principle? There being a $50 registration fee makes it worse, not better...

      the paper process has several advantages in terms of forcing residents to be lo

    • by cob666 ( 656740 )
      I agree...
      All other forms of temporary lodging require registration or licenses, why not airbnb?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Why should any temporary lodging require any such registration in the first place. Before you go off half cocked, I want actual facts, and not emotional violence typical of those that love government intrusions into business activities.

        The problem is, you probably can't show ANY reason why (factually based) the government should be involved.

        • by Holi ( 250190 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @02:26PM (#52408093)
          Why should people follow building codes? Why should hotels and restaurants follow health codes?
          Because we as a people have decided to enact laws that require them to follow the rules to make things safer for us, and because people have proven time and time again, that on their own they will cut corners to make an extra buck.
        • Why should any temporary lodging require any such registration in the first place.

          Rentals are usually taxable, so the state/local government arguably has the power to demand this information already.

          Some cities, typically tourist destinations, also charge a hospitality tax on short-term rentals.

          There may be a requirement for liability insurance. This ensures the owner is capable of compensating clients in the event of injury or property damage.

          Most buyers want a basic guarantee that the premises are relatively clean and safe. Mandatory registration is the first step in identifying rental

    • by ranton ( 36917 )

      Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business.

      Fighting local regulations in court and with lobbyists is also the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb is not trying to break the law, it is trying to change the laws. Nothing new to see here.

      If Airbnb can be fined because of the actions of its users, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does seem relevant. The Stored Communication Act also seems relevant since Airbnb is being compelled to notify local governments of user information that could potentially be protected by the law

  • Why? (Score:2, Troll)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 )

    How about instead, San Francisco politicians pay a $50 registration fee which includes an IQ and ethics test?

    • by gnupun ( 752725 )

      This registration requirement is a very good idea and very cheap ($50). If the host were to cause some problem to his guests, the city would be able to deal with the host more effectively (for example by revoking his registration).

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        But it would be a due process violation to just automatically revoke it. And there are already established processes with the legal system for dealing with code violations or civil infractions.

        • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

          Not necessarily. You can be considered a "nuisance neighbor" just for having a bunch of noise complaints or breach-of-the-peace infractions at a particular residence. It wouldn't be unreasonable to make known nuisance neighbors ineligible for AirBnB registration for some period of time.

  • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @12:49PM (#52407355)

    Some good reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

    1. It helps for planning purposes to know how many houses are homes and how many are short term rentals.
    2. This helps catch people whose lease forbids short-term rentals (e.g. in rent-controlled or subsidized apartments) who are using Air BnB
    3. People are dodging the taxes associated with (and already in place) for short term rentals
    4. Short term rentals often conflict with long term sustainable housing. Which SF has an issue with already. Limiting the stock of this is an important aspect of city planning.
    5. Renting property can be dangerous (there are sleeping/vulnerable travelers there) so being able to involve the government in revoking a license is a good thing. It can also be used to deny people with sufficiently criminal records.

    I'm sure there are more, but I only had a few moments to consider it. Conversely, the $50, and fill out a form seem like remarkably low burdens to impose. I mean, "I'm suing because this form isn't online" is pretty stupid.

    • Conversely, the $50, and fill out a form seem like remarkably low burdens to impose. I mean, "I'm suing because this form isn't online" is pretty stupid.

      In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online. I actually agree with the idea of charging $50 and making folks register, but registration shouldn't involve physically visiting somewhere.

      • by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Tuesday June 28, 2016 @02:28PM (#52408113)

        Sometimes they need to check your ID against the ID on the paperwork, or see a copy of your lease, or similar. Things you cannot do over the internet

      • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online.

        The idea is that the in-person registration requirement makes it less likely that you'll be a resident-in-absentia, renting out your unit full time. The landlords for my last apartment lived in Los Angeles. If they had to re-register every year, they might not see it as being worth it, compared to just getting a full-time tenant.

        • In 1995, yes. In 2016, there is absolutely no reason the form isn't be online.

          The idea is that the in-person registration requirement makes it less likely that you'll be a resident-in-absentia, renting out your unit full time. The landlords for my last apartment lived in Los Angeles. If they had to re-register every year, they might not see it as being worth it, compared to just getting a full-time tenant.

          Yes, obviously they're trying to make it more difficult. Making commerce more difficult is generally only something an idiot would approve of, though.

    • Conversely, the $50, and fill out a form seem like remarkably low burdens to impose

      Without having seen the form I don't know how you can draw that conclusion. The fact that it's a government form should actually steer you towards the opposite conclusion.

  • Seriously? The Communications Decency Act [wikipedia.org]? How the fuck does registering/taxing hotel rooms violate the Communications Decency Act?

    Dear Airbnb: Hotels are regulated for very good reasons. Please fuck off now.

    • Dear Airbnb: Hotels are regulated for very good reasons

      And those are??? You make a pretty big assumption that the regulations help consumers instead of offering ample opportunity for graft from the local government. Which I guess you support... I guess that makes sense though as foul-month people tend to be among the most corrupt and uncaring.

      • by kqs ( 1038910 )

        And those are??? You make a pretty big assumption that the regulations help consumers instead of offering ample opportunity for graft from the local government.

        I, for one, am rather happy that hotels where I stay have to follow various building codes and health codes. They have to pay taxes, which is fair since their business depends on local infrastructure. If they break the various rules or if they endanger guests or employees, they can be investigated and punished by someone. None of this is free, so lets make the people benefiting from it pay for it. Sure, there is always some level of graft. Much like if you buy a bushel of apples, there will usually be

    • Section 230... which probably should be its own law rather than part of the CDA, but whatever... explicitly shields internet services from liability for illegal actions by their users.

      The problem is not so much San Francisco imposing requirements on hosts to register with the city. Though the city is doing so in a fairly half-witted way. There is really no excusing the necessity to trudge down to city hall with actual pulp paper, rather than using a web form. The problem is that San Francisco is trying to

      • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        Section 230... which probably should be its own law rather than part of the CDA, but whatever... explicitly shields internet services from liability for illegal actions by their users.

        Doesn't sound like AirBnB is being made liable for anything here. It's the users that must pay the registration fee, not the company itself.

    • Dear Airbnb: Hotels are regulated for very good reasons.

      Yeah: corporate lobbying and crony capitalism.

  • Try exercising 2nd Amendment rights...

    The paperwork, etc. required is very onerous and invasive, requiring disclosure of otherwise HIPPA protected medial information.

    While I'm complaining, I'd like to say we should drop the invasive notion of drug tests for welfare recipients. Instead, just normalize the requirements with those for concealed carry: show up in person, with multiple forms of approved ID (citizenship and residency), get fingerprinted, fill out forms disclosing previous felonies and mental diso

  • "It can't be completed online and requires submitting all the documents in person." ... makes me feel like "Fuck you, Board of Supervisors"

  • It would probably be cheaper to AirBnB to just create and hand over a system to SF that automates the registration and payment process. For a tech company that would be trivial, compared to government bureaucracy. Offer SF a solution for online registration and payments and you can probably even get them to pay a small fee to have AirBnB administer the site for them. Happens all the time,.

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...