7 ms·

> But AirBnB is clearly used to create illegal hotels and that's the problem. The solution is increased enforcement of the laws that make these illegal. The i

> But AirBnB is clearly used to create illegal hotels and that's the problem. The solution is increased enforcement of the laws that make these illegal. The incentives aren't difficult: Create an anonymous tip line to report illegal AirBnB operations that violate zoning regulations. Have submitters provide the street address and URL of the AirBnB to make it easy. The person operating the AirBnB (or owner of the house) gets fined. The person submitting the tip about an illegal AirBnB receives 25% of the fine. It wouldn't take long for illegal AirBnBs to close up shop when they realize there are negative repercussions for what they're doing. Keep it anonymous to avoid retribution. I could even see bargain hunters looking for illegal AirBnBs to stay in, then reporting their hosts to collect their share of the resulting fine to recover some of the cost. The incentives are deeply stacked against the illegal AirBnB operators in this scenario. Of course, this only works in areas where it's illegal to run temporary rentals. I expect we'll see more of those regulations as the problems with short-term AirBnBs in residential areas become more apparent.

Tempest1981 5y ago
But who should pay for the increased enforcement? > anonymous tip line Run by Airbnb? Seems reasonable.
- Jarwain 5y ago
  Ideally the fines would pay for the program, but how expensive is it really to have an anonymous phone tip line, and reuse existing infrastructure to fine or ticket a property owner?
  - jolux 5y ago
    > how expensive is it really The answer, as with all govtech, is “a lot more than it should be.” Governments, especially local governments, have no internal technology competence, and have to rely on vendors and contractors for absolutely everything.
    - Groxx 5y ago
      It's also a 2-part cost. To run a tip-line and collect tips: probably very little. To act on that information, so you're able to identify and punish violators, without which there's no point in having a tip line: looooooots more.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        You just have to make the fine enough that it covers the cost of defending it against the people that do contest it.
    - Jarwain 5y ago
      I'm not sure why there needs to be a lot of tech involved for a phone line for people to call in tips.
      - jolux 5y ago
        I mean you can have Joe writing it down on a piece of paper, sure. But when it gets to a computer, costs start coming up. It depends on how the software works but the products used tend to be a) ancient and b) often either not configurable enough to support new use cases or so complicated that you have to submit a change request to the vendor to do it for you.
        Jarwain 5y ago
        Idk I imagined an excel spreadsheet, which hits the middle ground between paper and some complex govtech application. If it is successful and fines/funding rolls in then maybe upgrade
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      I haven't seen any evidence that governments, local or otherwise, spend "a lot more than it should [cost]." They are (correctly) unable to subsidize the cost of development by selling data, which in some cases means they cannot use certain preexisting libraries. But many groups have to rely on vendors and contractors for their technical needs. Their costs should be compared to other groups outsourcing their needs.
  - Tempest1981 5y ago
    And the cost for an enforcement agent/department to investigate. And each agent's salary, benefits, and pension. In many cities, the police don't even respond to auto/bike burglaries -- they're very minimally staffed.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Most cities have ample police force them being understaffed is somewhat of a bullshit narrative. For example NYPD has 36000 ifficers for 8.4M residents or 1 for every 230 people. In Chicago it's 225. In Seattle it's over 500 but they could probably afford more if they weren't paying individual officers up to 400k including non electronically tracked probably fraudulent overtime.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cletus 5y ago
> The solution is increased enforcement of the laws that make these illegal. Great idea. Let's fine AirBnB $50,000 per unit per year they knowingly rent out in NYC where they know such things are illegal. Don't go after the users (those using AirBnB) or the street dealers (those listing individual units). Go after the cartel that knowingly engages in illegal activity on a massive scale. That'll sort out the problem real quick.
- michaelpb 5y ago
  Yeah, I think people have a very binary view of "criminal enterprises" vs "corporations", like they can only be people who dress in pin-stripe suits and carry tommy guns and say "lookee here, see" a lot, but a tech company can be a criminal enterprise just as much as anything else. Any company that makes money by violating the law, or encouraging it's habitual violation, is a criminal enterprise by definition (at least by the colloquial definition), even if a top boss keeps his "nose clean". Just like with any other criminal enterprise, going after the top is going to be the most effective. I hope with more research like this, maybe attitudes will change.
  - clairity 5y ago
    yah, and i’ll just point out again[0] that firms try to get big to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. we need regulations that aim to right-size organizations, rather than the grow-at-all-costs we have now. [0]: a longer treatment i just posted as it relates to uber/lyft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27914112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27914112
  - Pet_Ant 5y ago
    You mean like Uber? They violated… and people would be pissed to see them go. So companies hope to be the rule breaker that gets too big to fail.
    - michaelpb 5y ago
      Yeah, though unfortunately some companies are big enough now to change the laws they violate [1] [1] https://abc7.com/22-california-prop-2020-ca-what-is/7585005/ https://abc7.com/22-california-prop-2020-ca-what-is/7585005/
oh_sigh 5y ago
NYC has that tip line: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/stay-in-the-know/information-for-neighbors.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/stay-in-the-kno... tl;dr: Don't use it, it is worthless. I called once after an AirBNBer tried to kick down my door at 3AM because he was on the wrong floor. Same guy projectile vomited red wine and bile all over the hallway as he stumbled away before falling asleep in the stairwell. Anyways, so I called the tip line, and they asked me "When do they show up?". I said I don't know, these people are strangers and I don't know their schedule. I was told to call back when I see them entering the building. So I did that when I saw them entering the building, and I was told "Thank you, we will send someone around shortly". But there were 90 units in my building...how would they know where to look or who to talk to? I was told "We'll talk to management". And then I asked them when they will be here, and they said "Within 6 hours, or possible tomorrow". Why it was so important that I only call them when I physically see someone entering the building if they are going to wait 24 hours to do anything - I do not know. I'm fairly convinced the NYC tip line is just for show and no one really cares in NYC about stopping illegal short term rentals.
kelnos 5y ago
> The person submitting the tip about an illegal AirBnB receives 25% of the fine. I feel like the whole "rat on your neighbors for money" thing has a lot of negative unintended consequences.
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  It absolutely would. But who's to say it was your neighbor instead of a random person in the city who's looking for a quick buck and knows AirB&B is illegal in the city?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  You can already do this with the IRS and receive 15% to 30% of what is owed[1]. [1] https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-office https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-office
- simfree 5y ago
  This good samaritan compensation model works well in New York to catch illicitly idling commercial vehicles. How are illicit short term rentals significantly different?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- spfzero 5y ago
  But it’s not ratting on your neighbors. They’re not your neighbors anymore when they moved away from your neighborhood and rented their place out to people from outside your neighborhood who are not going to stay long enough to be your neighbors either. You no longer have neighbors in that home.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    In that case, I suppose yes the neighbors are gone. At the same time, what if they rent out their apartment only for two months and then they're back? Maybe that can be solved by waiting a month or so with complaining, combined with asking them about it
lr4444lr 5y ago
This is almost impossible to enforce. Depts. of Buildings are notoriously slow if the issue is not a clear and present safety hazard. By the time they get out there, the visitor will be long gone. They have to spend resources on the investigation, and build a pile of evidence. You think someone is gonna stake out every suspected violator for days on end?
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > They have to spend resources on the investigation, and build a pile of evidence. You think someone is gonna stake out every suspected violator for days on end? The property is listed on AirBnB.com, where you get the address and the name of the person operating the AirBnB. They don't need an elaborate sting operation. They just take the link, test book it through the website, confirm the address and name of the operator from the booking, and they have all the evidence they need. Hit up AirBnB for a refund (illegal rental) and it doesn't even cost them anything. Hour or two of work at most.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > The property is listed on AirBnB.com, where you get the address and the name of the person operating the AirBnB. Owners play a shell game and will have property managers list their properties under their names or their employees' names, along with fake addresses that are only revealed via messages after booking.
    - jeromegv 5y ago
      Renting a space at an address and sending your renters to a separate address is a big no-no with Airbnb terms. Easy to detect as Airbnb sends mail to check and confirm where you live. And Airbnb could not caution that game, they would get sued for falsified contracts.
      - greggman3 5y ago
        Wrong! (unless they changed policy) It happened to me. AirBnB claimed it was policy to let the listing on AirBnB show the wrong location. https://blog.greggman.com/blog/yet-more-airbnb-issues/ https://blog.greggman.com/blog/yet-more-airbnb-issues/
908B64B197 5y ago
"Illegal Hotels" This always makes me laugh. A lot of hotel regulation was written with fire safety in mind (large building with a lot of small rooms in it and a high number of occupants). But AirBnBs... are just regular apartments so they don't break the fire safety rules (if the appartment is zoned for two occupants, really you aren't breaking any laws by housing two guests). The rest is simply NIMBY and cities trying to fleece tourists really. Or bureaucrats trying to justify the red tape and regulation that keeps them employed. EDIT: Wow, I see the downvotes yet no explanations!
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Allowing landlords to buy up housing supply to rent by the day drives up prices for the 90% who need a house to live in them not profit from them. It's disadvagous for society to allow it. Society doesn't have to let you live your life at everyone else's expense. If I had to guess the down votes are either for lack of awareness, facile dismissal, supreme self confidence not matched by good grasp of the topic or the often unpopular complaining about down votes. The number one rule of down vote club is don't talk about down vote club.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > Allowing landlords to buy up housing supply to rent by the day drives up prices for the 90% who need a house to live in them not profit from them Notice how the conversation is always about a limited supply; never about how the cities could remove barriers for larger, denser constructions. Wonder why that is.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      We should fix the other problems but if we fail to or in the meantime we ought to prevent the existing problems from being exacerbated by Airbnb.
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      Maybe because not everyone is interested in living like an animal in crowded apartments?
hermitdev 5y ago
Why single out AirBnB? Why not go after Uber, Lyft and others running illegal taxis? For all the talk of privilege lately, it takes a whole other level to blatantly break the law en masse under the guise of "disruption".
- virtue3 5y ago
  This is a strawman argument and totally different. They aren't "illegal taxies" They've been allowed by the local governments and are taxed. Austin got them all to leave at one point by requiring stricter standards of vetting drivers.
- cletus 5y ago
  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and treat this like a genuine question. I say this because this argument has become so prominent in recent years as a means of defending the indefensible. It's often referred to as "butwhataboutism". There are a few variations of this. For example: - Arguing against legislation because it leaves some problems unsolved. This applies to literally all legislation and an improvement is typically better than nothing. The problem is that those making these arguments typically know this and don't want any change; - Why prosecute person or company for X when some other person or company does something vaguely similar? Well is there sufficient evidence for the prosecution to proceed? If yes then the "but what about X" argument is simply being used as a means to stop a prosecution where there's a vested interest. Because otherwise it's like saying "because this person over here wasn't charged with murder then we shouldn't charge anyone with murder". I really hope that people develop the critical skills to see through this for what it is: a means of manipulating people. So the next time someone tries this stop and ask yourself why they're bringing up a new topic rather than addressing the existing one. Who are they trying to manipulate and why?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I think AirBnB, Uber and Lyft should all be targeted. Uber and Lyft's externalities increase traffic. AirBnB's drive up everyone's rent. Clearly AirBnB's is worse. The question isn't "legal or not". It's how badly does the illegal act impact society. Same reason we prioritize arresting drunk drivers over red light runners.
tomrod 5y ago
So, like swatting, but less deadly, and with no repercussions?
hogFeast 5y ago
There is a lack of funding for enforcement. Where I am, the AirBnB market is huge, has led to unprecedented house price growth, and there were already rules requiring short-stay properties to be licensed...85% of properties on AirBnb aren't licensed, and department is a handful of people that are somehow meant to monitor tens of thousands of properties. I have heard of councils employing people to check but that means: looking at properties online, going to the area, trying to work out where they are, finding out where the property owner is (AirBnb have said they will refuse to comply with any requests from local govt). The rules have been made more solid now. They are introducing a very punitive fine and some areas can have no short-term rentals but AirBnb has thrived because they exploited regulation. Local govt has to be in control (although where I am, the reason they didn't introduce anything even stricter is because the tourist economy is so large...so...it is tricky when there is money coming in).
throwaway9980 5y ago
If Airbnb is violating local laws it seems like a simple subpoena would yield the necessary information.
wonder_er 5y ago
Prohibition has already been tried with alcohol and drugs. Lets leave it in the past.
wesleywt 5y ago
I think criminalising what you do to with your own property is slippery slope to no property ownership.
- oblio 5y ago
  There are very few slippery slopes and too much fear about them. Property ownership, especially real estate, is limited in many ways. Try depositing asbestos in your condo and see how far you get.
- another-dave 5y ago
  We already have plenty of laws to regulate what you can do within your own property so it doesn't inconvenience your neighbours — burning rubbish out your back garden, playing loud music in the middle of the night, putting up structures that block daylight coming into their property etc. etc. I think having zoning laws that say hotels aren't allowed in "this area" but they are allowed in "that area" isn't unreasonable. (Most people have no problems with a long-term resident going away for a weekend and letting their house on AirBnB, it's when you turn a property in a residential neighbourhood into a permanent short-term let that's the issue.)
specialist 5y ago
"Increased enforcement" is the new "self policing". Clap louder, Tinkerbell is sure to fly.

Tempest1981 5y ago

But who should pay for the increased enforcement? > anonymous tip line Run by Airbnb? Seems reasonable.

Jarwain 5y ago
Ideally the fines would pay for the program, but how expensive is it really to have an anonymous phone tip line, and reuse existing infrastructure to fine or ticket a property owner?
- jolux 5y ago
  > how expensive is it really The answer, as with all govtech, is “a lot more than it should be.” Governments, especially local governments, have no internal technology competence, and have to rely on vendors and contractors for absolutely everything.
  - Groxx 5y ago
    It's also a 2-part cost. To run a tip-line and collect tips: probably very little. To act on that information, so you're able to identify and punish violators, without which there's no point in having a tip line: looooooots more.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      You just have to make the fine enough that it covers the cost of defending it against the people that do contest it.
  - Jarwain 5y ago
    I'm not sure why there needs to be a lot of tech involved for a phone line for people to call in tips.
    - jolux 5y ago
      I mean you can have Joe writing it down on a piece of paper, sure. But when it gets to a computer, costs start coming up. It depends on how the software works but the products used tend to be a) ancient and b) often either not configurable enough to support new use cases or so complicated that you have to submit a change request to the vendor to do it for you.
      - Jarwain 5y ago
        Idk I imagined an excel spreadsheet, which hits the middle ground between paper and some complex govtech application. If it is successful and fines/funding rolls in then maybe upgrade
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    I haven't seen any evidence that governments, local or otherwise, spend "a lot more than it should [cost]." They are (correctly) unable to subsidize the cost of development by selling data, which in some cases means they cannot use certain preexisting libraries. But many groups have to rely on vendors and contractors for their technical needs. Their costs should be compared to other groups outsourcing their needs.
- Tempest1981 5y ago
  And the cost for an enforcement agent/department to investigate. And each agent's salary, benefits, and pension. In many cities, the police don't even respond to auto/bike burglaries -- they're very minimally staffed.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Most cities have ample police force them being understaffed is somewhat of a bullshit narrative. For example NYPD has 36000 ifficers for 8.4M residents or 1 for every 230 people. In Chicago it's 225. In Seattle it's over 500 but they could probably afford more if they weren't paying individual officers up to 400k including non electronically tracked probably fraudulent overtime.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cletus 5y ago

> The solution is increased enforcement of the laws that make these illegal. Great idea. Let's fine AirBnB $50,000 per unit per year they knowingly rent out in NYC where they know such things are illegal. Don't go after the users (those using AirBnB) or the street dealers (those listing individual units). Go after the cartel that knowingly engages in illegal activity on a massive scale. That'll sort out the problem real quick.

michaelpb 5y ago
Yeah, I think people have a very binary view of "criminal enterprises" vs "corporations", like they can only be people who dress in pin-stripe suits and carry tommy guns and say "lookee here, see" a lot, but a tech company can be a criminal enterprise just as much as anything else. Any company that makes money by violating the law, or encouraging it's habitual violation, is a criminal enterprise by definition (at least by the colloquial definition), even if a top boss keeps his "nose clean". Just like with any other criminal enterprise, going after the top is going to be the most effective. I hope with more research like this, maybe attitudes will change.
- clairity 5y ago
  yah, and i’ll just point out again[0] that firms try to get big to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. we need regulations that aim to right-size organizations, rather than the grow-at-all-costs we have now. [0]: a longer treatment i just posted as it relates to uber/lyft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27914112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27914112
- Pet_Ant 5y ago
  You mean like Uber? They violated… and people would be pissed to see them go. So companies hope to be the rule breaker that gets too big to fail.
  - michaelpb 5y ago
    Yeah, though unfortunately some companies are big enough now to change the laws they violate [1] [1] https://abc7.com/22-california-prop-2020-ca-what-is/7585005/ https://abc7.com/22-california-prop-2020-ca-what-is/7585005/

oh_sigh 5y ago

NYC has that tip line: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/stay-in-the-know/information-for-neighbors.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/specialenforcement/stay-in-the-kno... tl;dr: Don't use it, it is worthless. I called once after an AirBNBer tried to kick down my door at 3AM because he was on the wrong floor. Same guy projectile vomited red wine and bile all over the hallway as he stumbled away before falling asleep in the stairwell. Anyways, so I called the tip line, and they asked me "When do they show up?". I said I don't know, these people are strangers and I don't know their schedule. I was told to call back when I see them entering the building. So I did that when I saw them entering the building, and I was told "Thank you, we will send someone around shortly". But there were 90 units in my building...how would they know where to look or who to talk to? I was told "We'll talk to management". And then I asked them when they will be here, and they said "Within 6 hours, or possible tomorrow". Why it was so important that I only call them when I physically see someone entering the building if they are going to wait 24 hours to do anything - I do not know. I'm fairly convinced the NYC tip line is just for show and no one really cares in NYC about stopping illegal short term rentals.

kelnos 5y ago

> The person submitting the tip about an illegal AirBnB receives 25% of the fine. I feel like the whole "rat on your neighbors for money" thing has a lot of negative unintended consequences.

29083011397778 5y ago
It absolutely would. But who's to say it was your neighbor instead of a random person in the city who's looking for a quick buck and knows AirB&B is illegal in the city?
heavyset_go 5y ago
You can already do this with the IRS and receive 15% to 30% of what is owed[1]. [1] https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-office https://www.irs.gov/compliance/whistleblower-office
simfree 5y ago
This good samaritan compensation model works well in New York to catch illicitly idling commercial vehicles. How are illicit short term rentals significantly different?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
spfzero 5y ago
But it’s not ratting on your neighbors. They’re not your neighbors anymore when they moved away from your neighborhood and rented their place out to people from outside your neighborhood who are not going to stay long enough to be your neighbors either. You no longer have neighbors in that home.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  In that case, I suppose yes the neighbors are gone. At the same time, what if they rent out their apartment only for two months and then they're back? Maybe that can be solved by waiting a month or so with complaining, combined with asking them about it

lr4444lr 5y ago

This is almost impossible to enforce. Depts. of Buildings are notoriously slow if the issue is not a clear and present safety hazard. By the time they get out there, the visitor will be long gone. They have to spend resources on the investigation, and build a pile of evidence. You think someone is gonna stake out every suspected violator for days on end?

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> They have to spend resources on the investigation, and build a pile of evidence. You think someone is gonna stake out every suspected violator for days on end? The property is listed on AirBnB.com, where you get the address and the name of the person operating the AirBnB. They don't need an elaborate sting operation. They just take the link, test book it through the website, confirm the address and name of the operator from the booking, and they have all the evidence they need. Hit up AirBnB for a refund (illegal rental) and it doesn't even cost them anything. Hour or two of work at most.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > The property is listed on AirBnB.com, where you get the address and the name of the person operating the AirBnB. Owners play a shell game and will have property managers list their properties under their names or their employees' names, along with fake addresses that are only revealed via messages after booking.
  - jeromegv 5y ago
    Renting a space at an address and sending your renters to a separate address is a big no-no with Airbnb terms. Easy to detect as Airbnb sends mail to check and confirm where you live. And Airbnb could not caution that game, they would get sued for falsified contracts.
    - greggman3 5y ago
      Wrong! (unless they changed policy) It happened to me. AirBnB claimed it was policy to let the listing on AirBnB show the wrong location. https://blog.greggman.com/blog/yet-more-airbnb-issues/ https://blog.greggman.com/blog/yet-more-airbnb-issues/

908B64B197 5y ago

"Illegal Hotels" This always makes me laugh. A lot of hotel regulation was written with fire safety in mind (large building with a lot of small rooms in it and a high number of occupants). But AirBnBs... are just regular apartments so they don't break the fire safety rules (if the appartment is zoned for two occupants, really you aren't breaking any laws by housing two guests). The rest is simply NIMBY and cities trying to fleece tourists really. Or bureaucrats trying to justify the red tape and regulation that keeps them employed. EDIT: Wow, I see the downvotes yet no explanations!

michaelmrose 5y ago
Allowing landlords to buy up housing supply to rent by the day drives up prices for the 90% who need a house to live in them not profit from them. It's disadvagous for society to allow it. Society doesn't have to let you live your life at everyone else's expense. If I had to guess the down votes are either for lack of awareness, facile dismissal, supreme self confidence not matched by good grasp of the topic or the often unpopular complaining about down votes. The number one rule of down vote club is don't talk about down vote club.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > Allowing landlords to buy up housing supply to rent by the day drives up prices for the 90% who need a house to live in them not profit from them Notice how the conversation is always about a limited supply; never about how the cities could remove barriers for larger, denser constructions. Wonder why that is.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    We should fix the other problems but if we fail to or in the meantime we ought to prevent the existing problems from being exacerbated by Airbnb.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Maybe because not everyone is interested in living like an animal in crowded apartments?

hermitdev 5y ago

Why single out AirBnB? Why not go after Uber, Lyft and others running illegal taxis? For all the talk of privilege lately, it takes a whole other level to blatantly break the law en masse under the guise of "disruption".

virtue3 5y ago
This is a strawman argument and totally different. They aren't "illegal taxies" They've been allowed by the local governments and are taxed. Austin got them all to leave at one point by requiring stricter standards of vetting drivers.
cletus 5y ago
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and treat this like a genuine question. I say this because this argument has become so prominent in recent years as a means of defending the indefensible. It's often referred to as "butwhataboutism". There are a few variations of this. For example: - Arguing against legislation because it leaves some problems unsolved. This applies to literally all legislation and an improvement is typically better than nothing. The problem is that those making these arguments typically know this and don't want any change; - Why prosecute person or company for X when some other person or company does something vaguely similar? Well is there sufficient evidence for the prosecution to proceed? If yes then the "but what about X" argument is simply being used as a means to stop a prosecution where there's a vested interest. Because otherwise it's like saying "because this person over here wasn't charged with murder then we shouldn't charge anyone with murder". I really hope that people develop the critical skills to see through this for what it is: a means of manipulating people. So the next time someone tries this stop and ask yourself why they're bringing up a new topic rather than addressing the existing one. Who are they trying to manipulate and why?
HWR_14 5y ago
I think AirBnB, Uber and Lyft should all be targeted. Uber and Lyft's externalities increase traffic. AirBnB's drive up everyone's rent. Clearly AirBnB's is worse. The question isn't "legal or not". It's how badly does the illegal act impact society. Same reason we prioritize arresting drunk drivers over red light runners.

tomrod 5y ago

So, like swatting, but less deadly, and with no repercussions?

hogFeast 5y ago

There is a lack of funding for enforcement. Where I am, the AirBnB market is huge, has led to unprecedented house price growth, and there were already rules requiring short-stay properties to be licensed...85% of properties on AirBnb aren't licensed, and department is a handful of people that are somehow meant to monitor tens of thousands of properties. I have heard of councils employing people to check but that means: looking at properties online, going to the area, trying to work out where they are, finding out where the property owner is (AirBnb have said they will refuse to comply with any requests from local govt). The rules have been made more solid now. They are introducing a very punitive fine and some areas can have no short-term rentals but AirBnb has thrived because they exploited regulation. Local govt has to be in control (although where I am, the reason they didn't introduce anything even stricter is because the tourist economy is so large...so...it is tricky when there is money coming in).

throwaway9980 5y ago

If Airbnb is violating local laws it seems like a simple subpoena would yield the necessary information.

wonder_er 5y ago

Prohibition has already been tried with alcohol and drugs. Lets leave it in the past.

wesleywt 5y ago

I think criminalising what you do to with your own property is slippery slope to no property ownership.

oblio 5y ago
There are very few slippery slopes and too much fear about them. Property ownership, especially real estate, is limited in many ways. Try depositing asbestos in your condo and see how far you get.
another-dave 5y ago
We already have plenty of laws to regulate what you can do within your own property so it doesn't inconvenience your neighbours — burning rubbish out your back garden, playing loud music in the middle of the night, putting up structures that block daylight coming into their property etc. etc. I think having zoning laws that say hotels aren't allowed in "this area" but they are allowed in "that area" isn't unreasonable. (Most people have no problems with a long-term resident going away for a weekend and letting their house on AirBnB, it's when you turn a property in a residential neighbourhood into a permanent short-term let that's the issue.)

specialist 5y ago

"Increased enforcement" is the new "self policing". Clap louder, Tinkerbell is sure to fly.