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.
Frivilous Law Suit (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're saying there are no properties for sale in San Francisco.
Land banking is easy to fix with higher property taxes and a land value tax. The city could use the revenue to lower or eliminate the sales tax. This would (1) eliminate land banking and thereby make housing more affordable, (2) improve economic mobili
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:4, Interesting)
been to San Francisco? Where would they build new housing? They can't make the houses or apartments any narrower than they already are
One look at Seattle would answer your question. Any lot downtown that used to have a building less than 5 stories now has a highrise in some state of construction, or recently finished. There are about 50 highrise buildings (depending on how you define that) currently under construction, and the 5-10 story buildings are being eyed by developers for replacement now.
You can always go up, assuming the city lets you. Seattle lets you (at least in some areas, there are height restrictions in some places, but it's the minority), SF doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Real estate and tourism (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me think of the things I want in an Earthquake zone.
Look, if you want high-density residential complexes, pick somewhere else.
Tokyo would disagree. I'd bet more people live in high rises in Tokyo than in all of SF (given Tokyo is about 10x the size of SF).
Re: (Score:2)
SF is well on its way to GETTING a bunch of 50 story apartment buildings. And in earthquake territory on landfill that's not all that good an idea. (It's my understanding, possibly wrong, that the taller buildings depend on active countermeasures [which require electric power] to survive a major earthquake. Given the prevalence of aftershocks, this may not be such a good idea.)
Re: Frivilous Law Suit (Score:2)
You're from Canada, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
He's not saying that you should. He's pointing out how, in his opinion, the effects are different. Not that many people really care about the cab companies, except all the highly vocal cab company shills. But most people at least think they're supposed to care about their neighbors, or common people in general, and his claim is that AirBnB is hurting them, rather than the cab companies who many claim are really just a corrupt cartel who've paid off local governments for regulations favorable to their com
Some privacy more equal than other (Score:3)
Funny, how a registration requirement is Ok with people sometimes, whereas at other times it is an intolerable "invasion of privacy". Papers, please...
Re: (Score:3)
Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters — with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented.
Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine [wikipedia.org] — no warrant needed.
Because it was the government, the information is now public records and/or subject to FOIA-requests by anyone, not just law enforcement.
Privacy is not expl
Re: (Score:3)
Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters -- with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented. Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine -- no warrant needed.
You mean like when you tell AirBnB all the same information and they post it publicly to advertise your rental? You mean like that "willingly"? You mean like the pictures of the inside of the rental with a picture of the owner, like you can see on the AirBnB website? That kind of "willingly"? I bet the SF registration doesn't require pictures of either.
"Psst, AirBnB, I want to be a renter under your system, but keep it a secret, ok? Don't let anyone know. I like my privacy."
Because it was the government, the information is now public records
I wonder if the wayback machine
Re: (Score:2)
AirBNB does not publish your name. Nor the exact address.
But you bring up an interesting point — just what is it, that the city needs to know in addition to what AirBNB tells everyone? Or is this registration requirement simply a way of collecting $50 fees?
Freedom of Speech generally assumes freedom not to speak. There may also be 5th Amendment issues
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment has nothing to do with compelling speech. And in any event, you are free to not rent via AirBnB. Now you aren't compelled to register. The end.
Are you going to start complaining about the need to register as a corporation next? Or how about filing architectural plans before renovating?
Re: (Score:2)
AirBNB does not publish your name. Nor the exact address.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? How do you find the rental when you want to live there? Just wander about the neighborhood shouting "olly olly oxen free, I'm here for AirBnB!"
just what is it, that the city needs to know in addition to what AirBNB tells everyone?
I think I already said that. They want to make sure that the renter is not a corporation trying to avoid the corporate rules. And I think the fact that the fee is a paltry $50 shows they aren't in it for the money (despite fascinating conspiracy theories to the contrary) or to really stop it from happening.
Freedom of Speech generally assumes freedom not to speak.
AirBnB has no First Amendment issue here
Re: (Score:2)
Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine [wikipedia.org] — no warrant needed.
But that's a good thing. When police are investigating crime in my neighborhood, I want them to be aware that a certain unit is being occupied by transients.
Because it was the government, the information is now public records and/or subject to FOIA-requests by anyone, not just law enforcement.
I'm trying to picture what nightmare scenario you imagine this leading to. On the one hand, all business owners already need to register their address of record with the City. On the other, it's important that officials be aware which units are private residences and which are in effect hotels. Surely the business owner providing this information isn't
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any government-registration requirement is highly suspect and the vast majority of them are unwarranted and provide no tangible benefit in exchange for the very real loss of privacy and other burdens.
Re: (Score:2)
If the building was already an apartment, I don't see what the problem is. If it doesn't meet code as an apartment even though it's being rented short-term, it's not going to meet code as an apartment if they rent it as a regular apartment either. How does registering it solve this? And why aren't they making sure regular apartments meet code anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
No. regulating business is one of governments responsibilities, Businesses do not have a good history of self regulation.
Please, it's Frivilous Regulation (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Please, it's Frivilous Regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes and the SCOTUS essentially ruled yesterday that Texas can't impose safety regulations on abortion providers because abortion is 'right' (disagree personally) and the procedure appears to be to safe (which is funny because its about the only medical procedure I am aware that is almost universally fatal). So the states interest in ensuring safety does not offer a reason for regulation and imposes an undue burden.
Except that the regulations were a thinly veiled attempt to ban abortions by driving out all operations that do them. Going back to what I said - abortions are generally safe(for the mother), and the requirements that were being imposed would fail my standards.
IE:
First, they're expensive changes, this means the bar is higher for them being considered 'efficient'.
Second, there were no identified harms being addressed - IE they couldn't identify harm from the clinic drug cabinets not having medicines specifi
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Statists gonna state... (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
No citation for some reason... Maybe, because it is simply not true?
Stay in a hotel. Or start your own company — and see, if you can win the business of the people like yourself from AirBNB.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Frivilous Law Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
How about instead, San Francisco politicians pay a $50 registration fee which includes an IQ and ethics test?
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There are some good reasons for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Some good reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:There are some good reasons for this (Score:4, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If Uber and Lyft can do it, ABnB can do it. In Minneapolis/Saint Paul, all TNC drivers are required to present their car for inspection annually to a city designated inspector and pass the same automotive inspection that the taxis and limos go through. It's $50. It's an analog piece of paper with no on-line process available. You get the form, you physically take it to an inspector, have your car inspected, and you pay the fee. You must carry it and have it in your glovebox anytime a police officer asks fo
You just argued for AirBNB case (Score:2)
In Minneapolis/Saint Paul, all TNC drivers are required to present their car for inspection annually
But the DRIVERS are required to do it there, not Lyft. If this were the same thing Air BnB is having to do in SF, Lyft would be required to bring in the cars for inspection, not the drivers...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to shed a tear for twenty-billion-dollar companies running on the "asset light" model to have to internalize the costs of that asset light model. If that means having employees check on the legality when someone registers, that seems like a small price to pay. I mean, a $20B company with 34,000 employees. Stop the Madness!
Of course, they could just assume the risk, or similar.
Going to your objections....
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's say I agree with your reasons. AirBnB operates in 34,000 cities. Is it seriously reasonable to expect they will have someone in each city walk to city hall to manually check paperwork for every city? Since the onus is on AirBnB with this law, they'd have to. Considering they have 1,600 employees right now, they'd have to hire almost 33,000 more to comply with such legislation. Blatantly unfair."
So because one company operates in different markets it is unfair for one market to regulate itself? That s
Oops, another point (Score:2)
Something I forgot to mention in my comprehensive response (above) - There's no reason to assume those 33,000 employees would be anything close to fulltime. They could easily be contractors paid piece rate, or 1/10 time employees.
Communications Decency Act? (Score:2)
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.
Oh really (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah: corporate lobbying and crony capitalism.
Screw that! Has AirBnB ever tried to use 2nd Amdt? (Score:2)
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
However I might have felt about this... (Score:2)
"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 be cheaper to just... (Score:2)
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,.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if don't want to relieve yourself on the sidewalk, San Francisco has open-air urinals [latimes.com] now... Please keep up with the times ;^p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you like large cities, you would like San Francisco. If you do not like large cities, you probably would not like San Francisco. There are very few problems unique to the city.
Extreme housing prices inside the city without a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour commute is the main problem San Francisco has, that is probably only shared by New York city and maybe Los Angeles. And after visiting many times for work and for vacations attached to work trips, San Francisco doesn't have the same kind of entertainment / culture and food options you get from a city like New York to make the COL worth it.
I live in the Chicago suburbs, and areas such as the northwest suburbs (wh
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree about NYC. There absolutely *is* a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour's commute of Manhattan, on both sides: Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City by PATH, a large part of northern NJ by bus and train, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
There is so much wealth/money in SF its a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
<troll>Watch this episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine [wikipedia.org] for an accurate portrayal of present-day San Francisco.</troll>
Re: (Score:2)
SF is truly one of the great shitholes of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
They destroy our jobs, and obama is just doing nothing.
What jobs are being destroyed in San Francisco?
What makes you think it's Obama's responsibility for anything that happens in San Francisco?
Re: (Score:2)
What jobs are being destroyed in San Francisco?
Service industry jobs. I'm told it's getting pretty hard to find people willing to commute into the City to work a kitchen three days a week.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm told it's getting pretty hard to find people willing to commute into the City to work a kitchen three days a week.
That's an easy fix. Convert the part-time job into a full-time job and pay more. If that isn't doable, the restaurant owner need to rethink the business model and/or move to a city with available labor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see that as a problem. Maybe eventually all the restaurants and other stores will close, and the city will finally be forced to build high-rises.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the SCOTUS BS undue burden ruling on abortion yesterday should be taken and run with. I think any regulation where the state does not have solid evidence is effective at addressing an explicitly stated objective which restricts someones rights in anyway ( In this case AirBnb's right to advertise rent able units ) should be automatically considered unconstitutional.
Lets exploit this shabby reasoning to its max.
Nice thought, but we both know such interpretational standards will only be selectively applied where it favors TPTB's agendas and goals, and deliberately not where it favors those opposing the agendas and goals of TPTB.
Law for thee but not for me. The Rule of Law is dead in the US. Sadly, the US has become no better in that respect than some totalitarian banana republic.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand you correctly, you are saying: "People who want to rent out their house/apartment as a business have to register like any other business. This proves that the Rule of Law is dead in the US."
I'm not sure of your gender, so I don't feel right calling you a Drama Queen. Maybe Drama Royalty?
Government has always had the right to regulate commerce. To me, this seems quite reasonable. Sure, sometimes it regulates poorly, in which case I can spend my days wailing about how I'm being oppressed
Re: (Score:2)
which restricts someones rights in anyway
C'mon, you know that since Wickard, at least, the rule has been that if there is money involved you have no Constitutional rights.
Because, y'know, the Framers only expected the Constitution to apply to people who are starving to death.
From what I've seen, most of the /. hive-mind is perfectly content with this arrangement.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be completed online and requires submitting all the documents in person.
(emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:2)
We have people charging an entire months rent of their entire just for a room
Why exactly should someone not be allowed to rent out a room?
Re: (Score:2)
This is also a (potential) violation of the First Amendment: the government is directly controlling what AirBnB can/cannot post on its own website.
No it's not, no more than the government is restricting Craigslist's First Amendment rights by telling them they can't post ads for prostitutes, hit men, and drugs. If the property owners aren't registered and complying with the local ordnance then the listing is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not funny, is sad. And it's the same with self driving cars, tibia, 3d printers, and artificial intelligence. The problem isn't a lack of innovation, it's existing corporate interests, unions, and luddites.