5 ms·

Public safety regulations are not pointless red tape. They are created after real tragedy that shows a clear need. In fact, fire regulations in NY first applied

Public safety regulations are not pointless red tape. They are created after real tragedy that shows a clear need. In fact, fire regulations in NY first applied to apartments, while hotel owners fought for decades to avoid the regulation require it fire escapes (Read the following for more information http://www.uvm.edu/histpres/HPJ/AndreThesis.pdf http://www.uvm.edu/histpres/HPJ/AndreThesis.pdf ) Even after fire escapes were mandated hundreds of people died in a factory fire ( see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... ). I hope you are wiling to concede that these regulations, while imposing a real burden on businesses and landlords, were designed to correct a real and very persistent problem. Is your position that we would be better to just ignore fire and other safety rules for all hotels? In light of a clear rationale for such regulations, we must ask why one business should get to play by a different set of rules than another? Free market competition does not work if the only advantage is regulatory arbitrage. That would be like a race between two cars, one that has a 40 mile/hour speed limit, the other no speed limit. Which car would you pick? The only argument that I would concede is that perhaps AirBnB is closer to an actual bed and breakfast, so those regulations should apply, but I would guess that class of regulation is generally more strict than what they are subject to now.

wyager 10y ago
> Public safety regulations are not pointless red tape. This is the typical refrain of people who are trying to pitch pointless red tape; "it's about public safety!" Of course, 90% of regulations in any given industry have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them. Even those regulations that are nominally intended to increase safety are often counterproductive, and cause more utility loss than they prevent. > Is your position that we would be better to just ignore fire and other safety rules for all hotels? Are you really under the impression that the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring fire code? That's insane for multiple reasons, but mostly that all residential buildings (including AirBnBs) have to obey fire code already. > In light of a clear rationale for such regulations You're making two false assumptions here; one is that most regulations even nominally have a "clear rationale", and the second is that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't bother to look beyond first-order costs imposed by proposed regulations. It's quite likely that many safety-oriented regulations claim a great deal more lives than they save, since the increased economic burden of those regulations sucks up resources that would otherwise be used on e.g. healthcare or personal enjoyment. On an individual level, the difference is very smal, but multiplied over the millions of people who are affected by the regulation it adds up to a lot of man-hours and lives lost. > That would be like a race between two cars, one that has a 40 mile/hour speed limit, the other no speed limit. Which car would you pick? The unlimited car is clearly superior, so you're not exactly helping your own argument here.
- stuckagain 10y ago
  Actually no, owner-occupied residential buildings do not have to meet codes, under the liberal belief that it's OK for a person to subject themselves knowingly to certain hazards. However it is not OK for that owner to subject others to those hazards, which is why hotels and rental properties have to meet those codes even as the codes change. Therefore it is a regulatory advantage of AirBNB that unregulated residences are offered up as hotels without meeting the codes.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > Actually no, owner-occupied residential buildings do not have to meet codes, You are just straight up incorrect. No two ways about it. I'm actually a little surprised someone could have this little exposure to the residential regulatory bureaucracy. Maybe that's why you can support it. Here are some (not all) of the residential building codes that apply here. https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/single-family/training/docs/14-TMCS.pdf https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/single-family/training/docs/14... http://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes http://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes
    - stuckagain 10y ago
      Those are the codes for building a new building. The codes change but the buildings don't have to. You can occupy a 100-year-old building in San Antonio if you feel like doing it. No regulatory bureaucracy will be concerned.
      - wyager 10y ago
        Any time you do a renovation you have to bring everything up to code. No one is going to stay in a rotting 100-year-old house that's never been renovated.
    - digitaltrees 10y ago
      So again, do you acknowledge that, while these regulations many not be appropriate and should be changed, regulations of this type may be ok?
mcguire 10y ago
As to that last paragraph, some specific quotes from the article: "Airbnb has also bowed to pressure over planning concerns in residential areas, by agreeing to help enforce annual rental limits. But consumer protection is another emerging issue. David Weston, chairman of the Bed and Breakfast Association, criticises Airbnb for not ensuring compliance with fire regulations. “I think the public assumes some sort of checking if you are booking with a big global brand,” he adds. "By contrast, members of his association with as few as three letting bedrooms have been required to install fully wired fire alarms and fire doors. “We have had instances of people having to spend thousands of pounds,” he says. “It is extremely galling to find that fast-growing competitors are not complying with anything.” [...] "Airbnb rejects criticism of its fire safety measures, saying the Chief Fire Officers Association has confirmed that the advice it offers hosts is proportionate to the requirements of a family home. It encourages hosts to install safety features and, for a limited period, has offered a single free smoke/carbon monoxide detector — although it does not oblige hosts to fit smoke alarms. Its website says hosts have the option to fill out a safety card detailing emergency exit routes and locations of fire extinguishers, but this is not compulsory." "Proportionate to the requirements of a family home" and "the option to fill out a safety card" do not thrill me as someone who has been run out of a room by a hotel fire.
- digitaltrees 10y ago
  I agree that abiding by the regulations of a family home is not sufficient given how factually different the use of the property is and would also point out that this clearly enables a lower price as the hosts don't have to pass this cost along to AirBnB customers. I would also point out that the is likely asymmetric information here, where, as you point out, consumers either don't know or assume that the fire safety standards are inline with industry norms. Regulation should definitely be designed to correct information imbalances between customer/seller.

wyager 10y ago

> Public safety regulations are not pointless red tape. This is the typical refrain of people who are trying to pitch pointless red tape; "it's about public safety!" Of course, 90% of regulations in any given industry have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them. Even those regulations that are nominally intended to increase safety are often counterproductive, and cause more utility loss than they prevent. > Is your position that we would be better to just ignore fire and other safety rules for all hotels? Are you really under the impression that the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring fire code? That's insane for multiple reasons, but mostly that all residential buildings (including AirBnBs) have to obey fire code already. > In light of a clear rationale for such regulations You're making two false assumptions here; one is that most regulations even nominally have a "clear rationale", and the second is that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't bother to look beyond first-order costs imposed by proposed regulations. It's quite likely that many safety-oriented regulations claim a great deal more lives than they save, since the increased economic burden of those regulations sucks up resources that would otherwise be used on e.g. healthcare or personal enjoyment. On an individual level, the difference is very smal, but multiplied over the millions of people who are affected by the regulation it adds up to a lot of man-hours and lives lost. > That would be like a race between two cars, one that has a 40 mile/hour speed limit, the other no speed limit. Which car would you pick? The unlimited car is clearly superior, so you're not exactly helping your own argument here.

stuckagain 10y ago
Actually no, owner-occupied residential buildings do not have to meet codes, under the liberal belief that it's OK for a person to subject themselves knowingly to certain hazards. However it is not OK for that owner to subject others to those hazards, which is why hotels and rental properties have to meet those codes even as the codes change. Therefore it is a regulatory advantage of AirBNB that unregulated residences are offered up as hotels without meeting the codes.
- wyager 10y ago
  > Actually no, owner-occupied residential buildings do not have to meet codes, You are just straight up incorrect. No two ways about it. I'm actually a little surprised someone could have this little exposure to the residential regulatory bureaucracy. Maybe that's why you can support it. Here are some (not all) of the residential building codes that apply here. https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/single-family/training/docs/14-TMCS.pdf https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/single-family/training/docs/14... http://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes http://www.sanantonio.gov/DSD/Resources/Codes
  - stuckagain 10y ago
    Those are the codes for building a new building. The codes change but the buildings don't have to. You can occupy a 100-year-old building in San Antonio if you feel like doing it. No regulatory bureaucracy will be concerned.
    - wyager 10y ago
      Any time you do a renovation you have to bring everything up to code. No one is going to stay in a rotting 100-year-old house that's never been renovated.
  - digitaltrees 10y ago
    So again, do you acknowledge that, while these regulations many not be appropriate and should be changed, regulations of this type may be ok?

mcguire 10y ago

As to that last paragraph, some specific quotes from the article: "Airbnb has also bowed to pressure over planning concerns in residential areas, by agreeing to help enforce annual rental limits. But consumer protection is another emerging issue. David Weston, chairman of the Bed and Breakfast Association, criticises Airbnb for not ensuring compliance with fire regulations. “I think the public assumes some sort of checking if you are booking with a big global brand,” he adds. "By contrast, members of his association with as few as three letting bedrooms have been required to install fully wired fire alarms and fire doors. “We have had instances of people having to spend thousands of pounds,” he says. “It is extremely galling to find that fast-growing competitors are not complying with anything.” [...] "Airbnb rejects criticism of its fire safety measures, saying the Chief Fire Officers Association has confirmed that the advice it offers hosts is proportionate to the requirements of a family home. It encourages hosts to install safety features and, for a limited period, has offered a single free smoke/carbon monoxide detector — although it does not oblige hosts to fit smoke alarms. Its website says hosts have the option to fill out a safety card detailing emergency exit routes and locations of fire extinguishers, but this is not compulsory." "Proportionate to the requirements of a family home" and "the option to fill out a safety card" do not thrill me as someone who has been run out of a room by a hotel fire.

digitaltrees 10y ago
I agree that abiding by the regulations of a family home is not sufficient given how factually different the use of the property is and would also point out that this clearly enables a lower price as the hosts don't have to pass this cost along to AirBnB customers. I would also point out that the is likely asymmetric information here, where, as you point out, consumers either don't know or assume that the fire safety standards are inline with industry norms. Regulation should definitely be designed to correct information imbalances between customer/seller.