5 ms·

Because I don’t want to be burned alive by faulty wiring. Because I don’t want to be robbed, or scammed or murdered. Because I want to pay by credit card and no

Because I don’t want to be burned alive by faulty wiring. Because I don’t want to be robbed, or scammed or murdered. Because I want to pay by credit card and not have that card cloned. Because I want legal recourse if something goes wrong. That government licensing will protect you from these better than the market is an untested assumption.

Locke1689 16y ago
How would you test that? How many people would have to die in fires or slums before we consider the hypothesis "proven"?
- Empact 16y ago
  So we're banning this the avoid deaths-by-fire? Can you name a single example to justify the restraint? And if you could, wouldn't it apply to residences in general, not just those let out by their owners?
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/case.html http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/case.html MGM Grand Hotel fire, 1980.
    - Empact 16y ago
      What does a fire in a hotel say about short-term rentals, which have more to do with homes & apts than hotels? Do horrific club fires (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx4i1TwZME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx4i1TwZME) justify a ban on house parties? To restate: one of the justifications for regulating landlords is the possibility that they may offer unsuitable, even unsafe housing, in desperate circumstances. But where's the evidence that this is happening in the short-term rental market?
      - anigbrowl 16y ago
        I was giving a general example of the market not doing as good a job of protecting the public as regulation. Gathering statistics for short term home/apartment rentals would be rather tricky. But apartment fires seem a frequent enough occurrence: http://cbs5.com/local/fatal.fire.firefighters.2.1823700.html(girl http://cbs5.com/local/fatal.fire.firefighters.2.1823700.html... of 8 died in fire while family visiting relatives in San Jose); http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty/dozens-displaced-in-stamford-apartment-fire http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty/dozens-displaced-...; http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11656807 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11656807; http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24388077/detail.html http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24388077/detail.html. I have no opinion on the relative dangers of fires to residents vs short-term visitors, nor am I saying that regulation of short-term lets is necessary. I posted only to respond to the general contention that the market makes safety regulation unnecessary or superfluous.
- richcollins 16y ago
  If people are afraid of unsafe rental conditions, they should rely on a trusted third party assessment of the safety of the room they plan to rent. How do you support the assumption that the government's assessment is more likely to be accurate than that of a private organization?
cynicalkane 16y ago
Your post seems to bear a mistrust of government regulation in general. Actually, certification and licensing are standard economic solutions to many market problems. The argument isn't over whether this is true or not (AFIAK, in the economic world, only Mises-wingnuts think it's untrue) but whether it's applicable here.
nl 16y ago
That government licensing will protect you from these better than the market is an untested assumption. Actually, that isn't true. Many building code laws (and by extension hotel laws requiring fire escape access etc) were enacted because of large scale urban fires (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fire_safety_legislation_in_the_United_Kingdom#England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fire_safety_legislat..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Baltimore_Fire#Legacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Baltimore_Fire#Legacy). In general, building codes and related safety regulations for hotels have strong scientific and engineering testing behind them. It's true that these regulations are often imperfect. But it is also true that they have been tested and proven to be better than the absence of them.
- kiba 16y ago
  Sometime, the government just take the regulation code from private sources, such as Underwriter Labs. In fact, UL sets the standard from building code, household checmical, and fire-fighting equipments, and more. However, safety, like anything else is a tradeoff. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe building. Even if you were to make it totally safe, it would be too expensive to use or construct. You want safety? Just how much are you willing to pay?
  - nl 16y ago
    Exactly - I couldn't have said it better myself. Given that safety costs, it is usually appropriate that government regulates the minimum acceptable standard. Beyond that, the market decides (see some active safety features in cars etc)
- richcollins 16y ago
  That there were fires due to poor engineering practices 100+ years ago doesn't provide evidence that the market wouldn't create better solutions than government regulations in the present.

Locke1689 16y ago

How would you test that? How many people would have to die in fires or slums before we consider the hypothesis "proven"?

Empact 16y ago
So we're banning this the avoid deaths-by-fire? Can you name a single example to justify the restraint? And if you could, wouldn't it apply to residences in general, not just those let out by their owners?
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/case.html http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/case.html MGM Grand Hotel fire, 1980.
  - Empact 16y ago
    What does a fire in a hotel say about short-term rentals, which have more to do with homes & apts than hotels? Do horrific club fires (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx4i1TwZME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZx4i1TwZME) justify a ban on house parties? To restate: one of the justifications for regulating landlords is the possibility that they may offer unsuitable, even unsafe housing, in desperate circumstances. But where's the evidence that this is happening in the short-term rental market?
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      I was giving a general example of the market not doing as good a job of protecting the public as regulation. Gathering statistics for short term home/apartment rentals would be rather tricky. But apartment fires seem a frequent enough occurrence: http://cbs5.com/local/fatal.fire.firefighters.2.1823700.html(girl http://cbs5.com/local/fatal.fire.firefighters.2.1823700.html... of 8 died in fire while family visiting relatives in San Jose); http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty/dozens-displaced-in-stamford-apartment-fire http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/fairfield_cty/dozens-displaced-...; http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11656807 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11656807; http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24388077/detail.html http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/24388077/detail.html. I have no opinion on the relative dangers of fires to residents vs short-term visitors, nor am I saying that regulation of short-term lets is necessary. I posted only to respond to the general contention that the market makes safety regulation unnecessary or superfluous.
richcollins 16y ago
If people are afraid of unsafe rental conditions, they should rely on a trusted third party assessment of the safety of the room they plan to rent. How do you support the assumption that the government's assessment is more likely to be accurate than that of a private organization?

cynicalkane 16y ago

Your post seems to bear a mistrust of government regulation in general. Actually, certification and licensing are standard economic solutions to many market problems. The argument isn't over whether this is true or not (AFIAK, in the economic world, only Mises-wingnuts think it's untrue) but whether it's applicable here.

nl 16y ago

That government licensing will protect you from these better than the market is an untested assumption. Actually, that isn't true. Many building code laws (and by extension hotel laws requiring fire escape access etc) were enacted because of large scale urban fires (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fire_safety_legislation_in_the_United_Kingdom#England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fire_safety_legislat..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Baltimore_Fire#Legacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Baltimore_Fire#Legacy). In general, building codes and related safety regulations for hotels have strong scientific and engineering testing behind them. It's true that these regulations are often imperfect. But it is also true that they have been tested and proven to be better than the absence of them.

kiba 16y ago
Sometime, the government just take the regulation code from private sources, such as Underwriter Labs. In fact, UL sets the standard from building code, household checmical, and fire-fighting equipments, and more. However, safety, like anything else is a tradeoff. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe building. Even if you were to make it totally safe, it would be too expensive to use or construct. You want safety? Just how much are you willing to pay?
- nl 16y ago
  Exactly - I couldn't have said it better myself. Given that safety costs, it is usually appropriate that government regulates the minimum acceptable standard. Beyond that, the market decides (see some active safety features in cars etc)
richcollins 16y ago
That there were fires due to poor engineering practices 100+ years ago doesn't provide evidence that the market wouldn't create better solutions than government regulations in the present.