3 ms·

> Of course the immediate Zeitgeist of the comments here is that this is about protection of entrenched interests and quashing of innovation. > So, think befor

> Of course the immediate Zeitgeist of the comments here is that this is about protection of entrenched interests and quashing of innovation. > So, think before jumping on the "they're all ignorant Luddites" bandwagon... The immediate reaction being to protect entrenched interests has nothing to do with the "ignorant Luddites" as far as I'm concerned. I'm thinking more, when was the last time a Federal regulator probed something in order to actually benefit the little guy? AirBNB by its nature creates very local issues. I think the appropriate place to look and regulate is at the local level. Towns and residents can take it upon themselves to restrict unwanted activities or they can choose not to, based on the impacts to their communities. Going bigger than that with anything more than light regulation would promote a one size fits all approach, which wouldn't work considering towns and cities are very different from one another.

toss1 10y ago
Reasonable impulse to go for local regs, but we're talking about global services here. Is it a good idea to expect that a global service be forced to deal with a crazy-quilt patchwork of likely conflicting local regs? Obviously the service wants no reg, but if they're smart, they should want single fed regs, vs potentially unlimited local versions. And of course, are there federal concerns vs local concerns, e.g., taxation, undeclared income, effects on the capital gain on the buildings (someone renting out a house regularly shouldn't get the same cap gains exception as on a building used fully as a primary residence), etc., which make it pretty reasonable to look at it from that level.
- SmellTheGlove 10y ago
  The issues and concerns raised are almost entirely local. So yes, I think local regulation is most appropriate, even if that's more challenging for the business. To me it doesn't matter how the business wants to be regulated. It matters more why the regulation is required, and where it's needed. Almost all of that is at the local level. Beyond that, I'm not sure that you could regulate it Federally as the power to regulate these matters tends to be reserved to the states, and delegated to the local government. Property is almost always regulated where it is physically located. Federal taxation is a wholly separate issue. It arises out of the commercial gains, not the use of the land. Put another way, we don't intermingle Federal tax and permissible activities, the tax code doesn't tell you that you can't use your boat a certain way to generate income. It just speaks to what taxes you pay on the income (sometimes the income generated in that manner).
  - toss1 10y ago
    Sure, to the extent that it's entirely local, local-scale regs would likely be appropriate. However, it looks like they're specifically looking at national-scale distortions in the market. While I haven't examined the data supporting that, I would not be surprised to see large-scale distortions from a system designed to produce large-scale effects.

toss1 10y ago

Reasonable impulse to go for local regs, but we're talking about global services here. Is it a good idea to expect that a global service be forced to deal with a crazy-quilt patchwork of likely conflicting local regs? Obviously the service wants no reg, but if they're smart, they should want single fed regs, vs potentially unlimited local versions. And of course, are there federal concerns vs local concerns, e.g., taxation, undeclared income, effects on the capital gain on the buildings (someone renting out a house regularly shouldn't get the same cap gains exception as on a building used fully as a primary residence), etc., which make it pretty reasonable to look at it from that level.

SmellTheGlove 10y ago
The issues and concerns raised are almost entirely local. So yes, I think local regulation is most appropriate, even if that's more challenging for the business. To me it doesn't matter how the business wants to be regulated. It matters more why the regulation is required, and where it's needed. Almost all of that is at the local level. Beyond that, I'm not sure that you could regulate it Federally as the power to regulate these matters tends to be reserved to the states, and delegated to the local government. Property is almost always regulated where it is physically located. Federal taxation is a wholly separate issue. It arises out of the commercial gains, not the use of the land. Put another way, we don't intermingle Federal tax and permissible activities, the tax code doesn't tell you that you can't use your boat a certain way to generate income. It just speaks to what taxes you pay on the income (sometimes the income generated in that manner).
- toss1 10y ago
  Sure, to the extent that it's entirely local, local-scale regs would likely be appropriate. However, it looks like they're specifically looking at national-scale distortions in the market. While I haven't examined the data supporting that, I would not be surprised to see large-scale distortions from a system designed to produce large-scale effects.