4 ms·
I too am interested in this hinge of the issue, but I don't see any compelling argument (in the link or anywhere else) that Airbnb rentals are unique from motel
by zachrose 9y ago
I too am interested in this hinge of the issue, but I don't see any compelling argument (in the link or anywhere else) that Airbnb rentals are unique from motels. For one, the renter's end of the transaction is basically the same. For another, it seems clear that the law is meant to ensure equal access to move about the country. Regulating the market means being skeptical of distinctions without a difference.
- darawk 9y agoI think the two lines of argument would be: 1. The 'private club' exception. An individual renter is a small operation, and could maybe argue that their property represents a private club. In the same way that businesses under 15 employees (or whatever the limit is) are exempt from certain civil rights requirements. They're too small to be considered 'public' accommodations. 2. The word 'establishment': "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests,". Is an AirBnB renter an 'establishment'? The word is a bit poorly defined, but an argument could be made that since most AirBnB renters are not incorporated, they could not be considered to be 'establishments'. It may also turn on the degree to which the renting is a primary use of the home in question. I.e. if you own the house only to rent it out, you are an 'establishment', but if you also live there and only rent it occasionally, you are not.