8 ms·

One of the most memorable aspects of my recent Airbnb interview: most of the interviewers I talked to lamented that Airbnb wasn't "legal" everywhere. I don't t

One of the most memorable aspects of my recent Airbnb interview: most of the interviewers I talked to lamented that Airbnb wasn't "legal" everywhere. I don't think that's their biggest problem. Let's pretend for a moment Airbnb wanted to really bring value to travelers, hosts AND communities. What would they do to ensure the community at large benefitted? I have some ideas, mainly around ensuring users aren't listing more than one property and that neighbors of a listing have a way to veto a listing. But I'm getting the impression they don't really have a concern for the community. Which is ironic because their next play seems to be bringing a more cultural experience to Airbnb travel. It would be pretty hard to give someone a good cultural experience if they arrived at their Airbnb space and everyone in the neighborhood was ready to give the visitor the stink eye. Given most people are not Airbnb hosts, I have to imagine unless the company does some major community outreach in the next few years, they're gonna run afoul of some grassroots headwind.

username223 11y ago
> I'm getting the impression they don't really have a concern for the community. Of course they don't. Their "sharing economy" BS is just short-term regulatory capture as a business model: pull together enough money to buy off various politicians, change the laws to suit their business practices, and let someone else deal with the consequences. See the extractive industries and subsequent Superfund sites.
- greenleafjacob 11y ago
  I think that's a bit hyperbolic. Whatever "damage" AirBNB guests cause to the local community, it surely ends after they leave.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Most of the AirBnB "guests" people have issue with are immediately followed by other AirBnB "guests". Repeat. Repeat. Your once quiet apartment building is now a hotel with a stream of "guests" who treat it as disposable instead of as a home.
- barney54 11y ago
  An alternative view is that AirBnb is fighting the regulatory capture that has already happened.
w1ntermute 11y ago
> I have some ideas, mainly around ensuring users aren't listing more than one property This would destroy them. The reason Airbnb has grown far beyond what investors (and even the founders, probably) expected it to is because of individuals buying up and renting out large numbers of units as a full-time business, and because that phenomenon hasn't been stopped by regulators. You can't build a $20B+ business on the back of individuals renting out spare rooms here or there for some extra money. You can build one by unlocking untapped value in the urban real estate market by converting long-term rental properties to short-term ones (whether that's illegal or has negative externalities is another matter).
- wpietri 11y ago
  And that's the real thing that kills me here. I'm told architects have a saying: "form follows funding", and that now seems depressingly true. During my years in the industry I think things have steadily bent toward revenue at all costs, damn the mission, damn the government, and damn any sense of integrity. Zenefits is Exhibit A for me, but I hear story after story of companies building themselves to flip and doing shady things to maximize the next quarter's numbers. I wouldn't mind this so much were our self image purely about cash extraction, as in the financial industry. But once I think it was more about impact, and I fear we are telling ourselves that story more than the current reality justifies.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    The venture-backed technology industry is nothing more than an extension of the financial industry, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or deluding themselves. The guys on Sand Hill are getting their money from the same sources as the hedge fund managers on Wall Street.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      Which is, interestingly, the American middle class. Some Wall Street money is proprietary, sure. But a pretty good chunk of it is our 401ks and institutional pensions.
slyall 11y ago
> and that neighbors of a listing have a way to veto a listing. Seriously? Do you know what a NIMBY is? If you asked a dozen neighbors to all approve anything (even a differently coloured doorbell) then 100% chance that at least one would veto it.
- gaur 11y ago
  NIMBYs opposing high-density development during a housing shortage is a bad thing. NIMBYs opposing illegal hotels that exacerbate a housing shortage is a good thing.
  - eru 11y ago
    How do they exacerbate a housing shortage? (Short term rentals are also rentals.)
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      Long term rental apartments are removed from the long term rental market and turned into illegal short-term rentals on AirBnB. Owners/renters that do this often have several such properties. This is often done in areas with no shortage of hotel rooms because they can be rented at a lower cost (no tax, no requirement to follow regulations, no inspections, no conformity to hotel fire code, etc). So the long term rental market sees a decrease in available units due to some being illegally sublet as short term rentals. This exacerbates long term rental prices in areas where there is already a shortage of units.
      - grossvogel 11y ago
        ^^ YES ^^ I live in New Orleans, and this is my chief concern about short-term rentals. The guests can be obnoxious, sure, but that alone wouldn't have made this such a hot city-wide issue. The rental market has been changing very rapidly here, partly due to a recent influx of well-off young people, and it's causing a lot of anxiety about what the city will look like in the future.
      - 11y ago
yummyfajitas 11y ago
You could make the same argument about all sorts of services. For example, I think Grindr also doesn't care about their community. I have some ideas how to fix it - mainly ensuring users aren't hooking up with more than one person, and that neighbors of a Grindr user have a way to veto a house guest. To me that sounds kind of insane. I guess I just think that people should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own bedroom, provided it doesn't harm others against their will.
philihp 11y ago
I hope you enjoyed your recent interview. Please forgive me in the delay in responding to this, but I wanted it to be noticed by you rather. I work at Airbnb, and I empathize with your feelings. I, too, agree that hosts who list an extreme number of properties, and especially those who rent out properties specifically for the purpose of running a listing, are hurting our community. They are definitely not in line with our mission. Just the other month, several property managers were removed from the London market for doing just this: http://www.thememo.com/2016/02/16/airbnb-removes-hundreds-of-listings/ http://www.thememo.com/2016/02/16/airbnb-removes-hundreds-of... The problem with a blanket policies across the entire site limiting all hosts is that we have so many different use-cases. Some hosts will create multiple listings; one for when they want to rent out their entire home, and others for individual rooms in their home. Sometimes want to rent out their summer home in the winter, and their winter home in the summer. It is a difficult problem, so it makes more sense to remove hosts on an individual basis; either those who provide bad experiences for guests, or those who do not make a positive contribution to the community. Having neighbors be able to veto a listing sounds like a great idea, but how would you validate who the neighbors are? Especially in remote localities where internet access is limited?

username223 11y ago

> I'm getting the impression they don't really have a concern for the community. Of course they don't. Their "sharing economy" BS is just short-term regulatory capture as a business model: pull together enough money to buy off various politicians, change the laws to suit their business practices, and let someone else deal with the consequences. See the extractive industries and subsequent Superfund sites.

greenleafjacob 11y ago
I think that's a bit hyperbolic. Whatever "damage" AirBNB guests cause to the local community, it surely ends after they leave.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Most of the AirBnB "guests" people have issue with are immediately followed by other AirBnB "guests". Repeat. Repeat. Your once quiet apartment building is now a hotel with a stream of "guests" who treat it as disposable instead of as a home.
barney54 11y ago
An alternative view is that AirBnb is fighting the regulatory capture that has already happened.

w1ntermute 11y ago

> I have some ideas, mainly around ensuring users aren't listing more than one property This would destroy them. The reason Airbnb has grown far beyond what investors (and even the founders, probably) expected it to is because of individuals buying up and renting out large numbers of units as a full-time business, and because that phenomenon hasn't been stopped by regulators. You can't build a $20B+ business on the back of individuals renting out spare rooms here or there for some extra money. You can build one by unlocking untapped value in the urban real estate market by converting long-term rental properties to short-term ones (whether that's illegal or has negative externalities is another matter).

wpietri 11y ago
And that's the real thing that kills me here. I'm told architects have a saying: "form follows funding", and that now seems depressingly true. During my years in the industry I think things have steadily bent toward revenue at all costs, damn the mission, damn the government, and damn any sense of integrity. Zenefits is Exhibit A for me, but I hear story after story of companies building themselves to flip and doing shady things to maximize the next quarter's numbers. I wouldn't mind this so much were our self image purely about cash extraction, as in the financial industry. But once I think it was more about impact, and I fear we are telling ourselves that story more than the current reality justifies.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  The venture-backed technology industry is nothing more than an extension of the financial industry, and anyone who says otherwise is lying or deluding themselves. The guys on Sand Hill are getting their money from the same sources as the hedge fund managers on Wall Street.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Which is, interestingly, the American middle class. Some Wall Street money is proprietary, sure. But a pretty good chunk of it is our 401ks and institutional pensions.

slyall 11y ago

> and that neighbors of a listing have a way to veto a listing. Seriously? Do you know what a NIMBY is? If you asked a dozen neighbors to all approve anything (even a differently coloured doorbell) then 100% chance that at least one would veto it.

gaur 11y ago
NIMBYs opposing high-density development during a housing shortage is a bad thing. NIMBYs opposing illegal hotels that exacerbate a housing shortage is a good thing.
- eru 11y ago
  How do they exacerbate a housing shortage? (Short term rentals are also rentals.)
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Long term rental apartments are removed from the long term rental market and turned into illegal short-term rentals on AirBnB. Owners/renters that do this often have several such properties. This is often done in areas with no shortage of hotel rooms because they can be rented at a lower cost (no tax, no requirement to follow regulations, no inspections, no conformity to hotel fire code, etc). So the long term rental market sees a decrease in available units due to some being illegally sublet as short term rentals. This exacerbates long term rental prices in areas where there is already a shortage of units.
    - grossvogel 11y ago
      ^^ YES ^^ I live in New Orleans, and this is my chief concern about short-term rentals. The guests can be obnoxious, sure, but that alone wouldn't have made this such a hot city-wide issue. The rental market has been changing very rapidly here, partly due to a recent influx of well-off young people, and it's causing a lot of anxiety about what the city will look like in the future.
    - 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

You could make the same argument about all sorts of services. For example, I think Grindr also doesn't care about their community. I have some ideas how to fix it - mainly ensuring users aren't hooking up with more than one person, and that neighbors of a Grindr user have a way to veto a house guest. To me that sounds kind of insane. I guess I just think that people should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own bedroom, provided it doesn't harm others against their will.

philihp 11y ago

I hope you enjoyed your recent interview. Please forgive me in the delay in responding to this, but I wanted it to be noticed by you rather. I work at Airbnb, and I empathize with your feelings. I, too, agree that hosts who list an extreme number of properties, and especially those who rent out properties specifically for the purpose of running a listing, are hurting our community. They are definitely not in line with our mission. Just the other month, several property managers were removed from the London market for doing just this: http://www.thememo.com/2016/02/16/airbnb-removes-hundreds-of-listings/ http://www.thememo.com/2016/02/16/airbnb-removes-hundreds-of... The problem with a blanket policies across the entire site limiting all hosts is that we have so many different use-cases. Some hosts will create multiple listings; one for when they want to rent out their entire home, and others for individual rooms in their home. Sometimes want to rent out their summer home in the winter, and their winter home in the summer. It is a difficult problem, so it makes more sense to remove hosts on an individual basis; either those who provide bad experiences for guests, or those who do not make a positive contribution to the community. Having neighbors be able to veto a listing sounds like a great idea, but how would you validate who the neighbors are? Especially in remote localities where internet access is limited?