8 ms·

Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing. The law seems perfectly clear to

Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing. The law seems perfectly clear to me. As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

exelius 10y ago
I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditional regulatory systems have no way to deal with them.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  I could agree with this. But, since the government will have to do all this inspection, I guess you agree that they will have to levy a tax on AirBnB to pay for it?
  - exelius 10y ago
    I doubt Airbnb would agree with that -- since it would make their rentals much less attractive when compared to hotels (which have taxes around 15-20% in most big cities).
    - cmurf 10y ago
      Ok then their model succeeds mainly on the basis that it's freeloading by being an exception to rules that apply to hotels. They're cheaper because they're not doing pretty much any of the things hotels are required to do, not just limited to taxes, but including the various health inspection regimes that states require for places of public accommodation including hotels. So yeah, you don't have to clean as well as a hotel if you don't want, you don't have to pay the taxes as a hotel or even a regular long term rental unit if you can get away with it (thinking IRS will consider a portion of your house converted into business property and thus subject to business property gains tax when you sell the house, but not limited to this), you don't have to follow or even give notice that you don't follow ADA, on and on, because AirBnB doesn't verify any of this and it's claimed it's not their responsibility to do so; but they also don't support even a licensing program by municipalities and rental history reporting so that these municipalities could do their own verifications. Basically if you even the playing field across the board between an AirBnB and hotel, you end up with something like an actual Bed & Breakfast (although typically without breakfast but often with access to a kitchen). All things actually being equal, even price per square foot, I'd probably pick an AirBnB, but I actively avoid it whenever possible because I think their success mainly constitutes free loading (and enabling it by property owners)
      - exelius 10y ago
        I agree with you -- Uber succeeded for many of the same reasons. They found a weak, fragmented, and hyper localized regulatory environment (very similar to that of hotels) that they could overwhelm with global scale after building up in a few "friendly" markets. I suspect Google was trying to do the same with Google Fiber, but found the opposition (in the form of AT&T / Verizon / Comcast / TWC / Charter / Cox) was too organized and entrenched.
        cmurf 10y ago
        I agree with the idea that there are inefficiencies, unfairnesses, externalities in the "legit" way of operating short term rentals. But there are many hotels without 24/7 customer service, where the front desk is closed after 10pm and you get to call a number with urgent needs (like plumbing failures or whatever), etc. And they are cheaper than typical hotels, as are typical bed and breakfasts as compared to the boutique b&b's. So it's completely fair to be critical of all of these inefficiencies, but I think it's wrong to suggest AirBnB has some particular innovation other than their app connection buyer and seller, and themselves evading and enabling others to evade, the level playing field. Such as it is.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Why wouldn't the government just require AirBnB to provide transaction data in response to a report of discrimination?
- stcredzero 10y ago
  I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. There's a world of difference between a single family letting their guest room, the runner of a "Hacker Hostel" with 12 bunks, and someone who rents 4 different properties on AirBnB but lives in another house. The laws should be formulated such that the rules for hotels also apply to the 3rd case. Such laws should definitely not apply to the 1st case. A "Hacker Hostel" is also something of an interest group, so I'm not sure what applies there.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b): (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you quoted.) (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone, none of this actually applies to me.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are not by the owner, and thus not within this exception even before considering the limitations on the exception.) > (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...]) And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is all limitations on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]" The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.
  - jasode 10y ago
defen 10y ago
I believe the point is that any action AirBnB takes to reduce the racial discrimination problem (moving to instant booking, reducing or eliminating the visibility of the renter's photo / real name) will also prevent hosts from discriminating against white supremacists (more generally, any non-protected class towards whom the host feels extreme revulsion)
bdcravens 10y ago
How can you draw the distinction however? Couldn't the white supremacist claim another reason? (for instance, white supremacists often bridge their religious beliefs with their racist views)
stcredzero 10y ago
Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US The majority of recent uses of the term "white supremacist" make me cringe. It's mostly propaganda: A deliberate emotional attack often based on a false equivalence. In any case, the impression I have as a frequent AirBnB user is that most AirBnB owners aren't interested in renting on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." Rather, they are most interested in education level, socioeconomic status, and manners as a proxy for risk. They just want to determine how likely the potential guests are to cause an out-sized expense in time, treasure, and emotional energy. Not letting people exercise such judgement is effectively creating a privileged group on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (EDIT: However, I would only reserve such leeway for people renting out a part of their own residence. People who own or have leases on a large number of rooms/properties renting on AirBnB should have to abide by such laws, as they are basically in the hotel business, and are covered by the applicable laws. Also, their increased transaction volume makes such laws enforceable, whereas a genuine single family on AirBnB would often not have such volume. Equating these different classes of AirBnB user would be a False Equivalence.)
- MarkMc 10y ago
  The problem is that it's much easier to determine someone's race than socioeconomic status, then use it as a proxy for risk. And even if we remove all racial characteristics from the application, judging by socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race. And even if there were no correlation between socioeconomic status and race, it still seems wrong to discriminate against a poor person even if, on average, poor people cause more problems for the landlord.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race. If you're "playing the odds" by using race as a proxy for socioeconomic status, then this is wrong. It's also a pretty poor proxy, in my experience. What about our judgements about people's judgements? (Meta-judgements.) If you're equating making a factual determination about socioeconomic status with racial discrimination, then you are using the same sort of statistical proxy you're arguing against! And even if there were no correlation between socioeconomic status and race, it still seems wrong to discriminate against a poor person even if, on average, poor people cause more problems for the landlord. Really, socioeconomic status is a proxy for behavior and ability to pay. Because of its rating system, AirBnB can function as a meritocracy. The fact that it has an effective rating system is a competitive advantage. Provided they are not absolutely locked out, it seems feasible for a poor person to earn a good rating in such a meritocratic system. If AirBnB wants to further social justice, then it should make the meritocracy of the ratings fairer, instead of denying its utility to hosts. The former increases justice. The latter is using market power to force hosts into behaving how you want. You don't win hearts and minds by forcing people to do things. You win them by facilitating their voluntary transactions with all different kinds of people. (I've seen this first hand. I saw one of my classmates go from being a homophobe to being the best friend of a gay activist, by bonding over soap operas.)
Spooky23 10y ago
It's not housing. Your home is your castle, and you are sharing it for a limited scope, either a room or block of time. That's pretty much the basis for AirBnb's existence.

exelius 10y ago

I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditional regulatory systems have no way to deal with them.

RodericDay 10y ago
I could agree with this. But, since the government will have to do all this inspection, I guess you agree that they will have to levy a tax on AirBnB to pay for it?
- exelius 10y ago
  I doubt Airbnb would agree with that -- since it would make their rentals much less attractive when compared to hotels (which have taxes around 15-20% in most big cities).
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Ok then their model succeeds mainly on the basis that it's freeloading by being an exception to rules that apply to hotels. They're cheaper because they're not doing pretty much any of the things hotels are required to do, not just limited to taxes, but including the various health inspection regimes that states require for places of public accommodation including hotels. So yeah, you don't have to clean as well as a hotel if you don't want, you don't have to pay the taxes as a hotel or even a regular long term rental unit if you can get away with it (thinking IRS will consider a portion of your house converted into business property and thus subject to business property gains tax when you sell the house, but not limited to this), you don't have to follow or even give notice that you don't follow ADA, on and on, because AirBnB doesn't verify any of this and it's claimed it's not their responsibility to do so; but they also don't support even a licensing program by municipalities and rental history reporting so that these municipalities could do their own verifications. Basically if you even the playing field across the board between an AirBnB and hotel, you end up with something like an actual Bed & Breakfast (although typically without breakfast but often with access to a kitchen). All things actually being equal, even price per square foot, I'd probably pick an AirBnB, but I actively avoid it whenever possible because I think their success mainly constitutes free loading (and enabling it by property owners)
    - exelius 10y ago
      I agree with you -- Uber succeeded for many of the same reasons. They found a weak, fragmented, and hyper localized regulatory environment (very similar to that of hotels) that they could overwhelm with global scale after building up in a few "friendly" markets. I suspect Google was trying to do the same with Google Fiber, but found the opposition (in the form of AT&T / Verizon / Comcast / TWC / Charter / Cox) was too organized and entrenched.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        I agree with the idea that there are inefficiencies, unfairnesses, externalities in the "legit" way of operating short term rentals. But there are many hotels without 24/7 customer service, where the front desk is closed after 10pm and you get to call a number with urgent needs (like plumbing failures or whatever), etc. And they are cheaper than typical hotels, as are typical bed and breakfasts as compared to the boutique b&b's. So it's completely fair to be critical of all of these inefficiencies, but I think it's wrong to suggest AirBnB has some particular innovation other than their app connection buyer and seller, and themselves evading and enabling others to evade, the level playing field. Such as it is.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Why wouldn't the government just require AirBnB to provide transaction data in response to a report of discrimination?
stcredzero 10y ago
I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them. There's a world of difference between a single family letting their guest room, the runner of a "Hacker Hostel" with 12 bunks, and someone who rents 4 different properties on AirBnB but lives in another house. The laws should be formulated such that the rules for hotels also apply to the 3rd case. Such laws should definitely not apply to the 1st case. A "Hacker Hostel" is also something of an interest group, so I'm not sure what applies there.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b): (b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you quoted.) (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone, none of this actually applies to me.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below. > Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:... (Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are not by the owner, and thus not within this exception even before considering the limitations on the exception.) > (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...]) And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is all limitations on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]" The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.
- jasode 10y ago

defen 10y ago

I believe the point is that any action AirBnB takes to reduce the racial discrimination problem (moving to instant booking, reducing or eliminating the visibility of the renter's photo / real name) will also prevent hosts from discriminating against white supremacists (more generally, any non-protected class towards whom the host feels extreme revulsion)

bdcravens 10y ago

How can you draw the distinction however? Couldn't the white supremacist claim another reason? (for instance, white supremacists often bridge their religious beliefs with their racist views)

stcredzero 10y ago

Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US The majority of recent uses of the term "white supremacist" make me cringe. It's mostly propaganda: A deliberate emotional attack often based on a false equivalence. In any case, the impression I have as a frequent AirBnB user is that most AirBnB owners aren't interested in renting on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." Rather, they are most interested in education level, socioeconomic status, and manners as a proxy for risk. They just want to determine how likely the potential guests are to cause an out-sized expense in time, treasure, and emotional energy. Not letting people exercise such judgement is effectively creating a privileged group on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (EDIT: However, I would only reserve such leeway for people renting out a part of their own residence. People who own or have leases on a large number of rooms/properties renting on AirBnB should have to abide by such laws, as they are basically in the hotel business, and are covered by the applicable laws. Also, their increased transaction volume makes such laws enforceable, whereas a genuine single family on AirBnB would often not have such volume. Equating these different classes of AirBnB user would be a False Equivalence.)

MarkMc 10y ago
The problem is that it's much easier to determine someone's race than socioeconomic status, then use it as a proxy for risk. And even if we remove all racial characteristics from the application, judging by socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race. And even if there were no correlation between socioeconomic status and race, it still seems wrong to discriminate against a poor person even if, on average, poor people cause more problems for the landlord.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race. If you're "playing the odds" by using race as a proxy for socioeconomic status, then this is wrong. It's also a pretty poor proxy, in my experience. What about our judgements about people's judgements? (Meta-judgements.) If you're equating making a factual determination about socioeconomic status with racial discrimination, then you are using the same sort of statistical proxy you're arguing against! And even if there were no correlation between socioeconomic status and race, it still seems wrong to discriminate against a poor person even if, on average, poor people cause more problems for the landlord. Really, socioeconomic status is a proxy for behavior and ability to pay. Because of its rating system, AirBnB can function as a meritocracy. The fact that it has an effective rating system is a competitive advantage. Provided they are not absolutely locked out, it seems feasible for a poor person to earn a good rating in such a meritocratic system. If AirBnB wants to further social justice, then it should make the meritocracy of the ratings fairer, instead of denying its utility to hosts. The former increases justice. The latter is using market power to force hosts into behaving how you want. You don't win hearts and minds by forcing people to do things. You win them by facilitating their voluntary transactions with all different kinds of people. (I've seen this first hand. I saw one of my classmates go from being a homophobe to being the best friend of a gay activist, by bonding over soap operas.)

Spooky23 10y ago

It's not housing. Your home is your castle, and you are sharing it for a limited scope, either a room or block of time. That's pretty much the basis for AirBnb's existence.