4 ms·

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

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?
okreallywtf 10y ago
You said in a lot less words the same thing I just finished typing. To expand on your point, I have friends who have been occupying a nearly 100 year old house for 30+ years who in the last 2 or 3 started renting it on AirBnB. I lived there while in college for a few years as well. It had live knob-and-tube wiring [1] whose asbestos sheathing had long since flaked off or were ready to flake off at the slightest touch and many other not-even-close-to-current-code issues that were 100% legal due to it being grandfathered in. When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this. Unfortunately it varies it seems whether or not BnB's (air or not) are subject to extra regulation, even if its not the same as a large hotel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring
- wyager 10y ago
  > When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed Exactly. Any house that has not been renovated recently enough to adopt modern safety regs is unmarketable. > but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this. So you're complaint is that in a hypothetical universe where rennovations didn't involve bringing buildings up to code, AirBnBs would be unsafe? That's true, but irrelevant. We don't live in that universe.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Renovations don't automatically involve bringing buildings up to code. Renovations aren't required, either.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    But we live in the universe where you can 100% guarantee that all AirBnB's have up to date building codes because they've been renovated? Do you not see the issue with that logic? Can you not imagine a circumstance when a house was renovated right before a major change in building codes and didn't have to be renovated again prior to being a AirBnB? I'm not entirely sure you aren't just trolling at this point. Of course, this doesn't really matter since as has been stated by myself and others: normal building codes that are sufficient for a homeowner are not necessarily sufficient for other occupants who are paying to stay a night there, but your logic is terribly flawed anyways and it must be pointed out.

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?

okreallywtf 10y ago

You said in a lot less words the same thing I just finished typing. To expand on your point, I have friends who have been occupying a nearly 100 year old house for 30+ years who in the last 2 or 3 started renting it on AirBnB. I lived there while in college for a few years as well. It had live knob-and-tube wiring [1] whose asbestos sheathing had long since flaked off or were ready to flake off at the slightest touch and many other not-even-close-to-current-code issues that were 100% legal due to it being grandfathered in. When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this. Unfortunately it varies it seems whether or not BnB's (air or not) are subject to extra regulation, even if its not the same as a large hotel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob-and-tube_wiring

wyager 10y ago
> When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed Exactly. Any house that has not been renovated recently enough to adopt modern safety regs is unmarketable. > but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this. So you're complaint is that in a hypothetical universe where rennovations didn't involve bringing buildings up to code, AirBnBs would be unsafe? That's true, but irrelevant. We don't live in that universe.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Renovations don't automatically involve bringing buildings up to code. Renovations aren't required, either.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  But we live in the universe where you can 100% guarantee that all AirBnB's have up to date building codes because they've been renovated? Do you not see the issue with that logic? Can you not imagine a circumstance when a house was renovated right before a major change in building codes and didn't have to be renovated again prior to being a AirBnB? I'm not entirely sure you aren't just trolling at this point. Of course, this doesn't really matter since as has been stated by myself and others: normal building codes that are sufficient for a homeowner are not necessarily sufficient for other occupants who are paying to stay a night there, but your logic is terribly flawed anyways and it must be pointed out.