9 ms·

A Warning for Airbnb Hosts

142 points by trauco 14y ago

aba_sababa 14y ago
Was this paid for by hotel interests? I'm really trying to understand the depth of PR in the news.
- duked 14y ago
  couldn't it simply be a genuine customer review. I honestly think there's no PR from hotel lobby here.
- jordan0day 14y ago
  I can understand your sentiment, and you might be entirely correct to presume there's an agenda being pushed. That said, it's a legitimate story. People are breaking the law and not even aware of it. Even if it is a "hit" piece, the concern is real.
- uptown 14y ago
  Given the choice, I'd imagine hotels would prefer AirBNB's name not get any mainstream press - good or bad.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  Yeah, I mean, ignorance of the law and injustice of the law is no excuse in court, but it's a perfectly good moral excuse.
- bcoates 14y ago
  The NYT does have a hate-on for AirBnB. I'm not sure if it's because it's stepping on some toes that have influence there or if they're just not glamored by the new tech aspect like everyone else. Or maybe AirBnB is similar enough to craigslist and newspapers hate craigslist because it killed print.
  - danso 14y ago
    What's with the need to see a conspiracy in everything? Is it so hard to see how housing laws, which NYC residents LOVE when it comes to rent control and tenant rights, inherently conflict with the freedom for a renter to rent out the apartment for a profit? I'm all for critical thinking, but not when it flouts occam's Razor just for the hell of it.
    - aba_sababa 14y ago
      I agree in theory, but PG posted some pretty damning stuff about the reach of PR in the news, and I want to know how far that reach goes down. In this article, the author specifically says, "yo, you shouldn't airbnb." That's a bit more than just reporting the facts.
      - bcoates 14y ago
        Hometown bias against a weird foreign service contrary to local norms is a pretty reasonable explanation. Sometimes I forget what the NY in NYT stands for :)
- sks 14y ago
  It may be paid for by some hotel lobby, that does not invalidate the story. (Assuming that the facts and the stories reported are true)
rm999 14y ago
Five figure fines are completely unreasonable, the fault lies with NYC and the hotels who lobbied for these laws. Short-term housing is really bad for a city whose economy benefits so much from tourism; tiny hotel rooms start at 250/night. Airbnb is a really optimal solution. My neighbor is an airbnb apartment. At first it bothered me that new people were staying there every week, but I realized the benefits. The people who stay there are always quiet and respectful, and I know the place is cleaned regularly (no rats/cockroaches coming from there). I think it works out well for my landlord too.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  Lodging laws aren't there just to protect hotels. They exist to protect consumers and residents as well by setting standards for safety, etc. and helping pay for the services provided to guests by the municipality. If you take AirBNB to its logical conclusion, you end up with landlords renting apartments on AirBNB instead of to actual residents, because they can make more that way -- because they're ducking the rules on offering commercial lodging, not paying for proper insurance, not paying taxes, etc. I'm sure if someone ran a hotel but didn't bother with commercial fire codes and local taxes, they could charge less too.
  - bilbo0s 14y ago
    "...If you take AirBNB to its logical conclusion, you end up with landlords renting apartments on AirBNB instead of to actual residents, because they can make more that way..." This is exactly what happens in Paris. Housing market there is skewed due to exactly this behavior. People buy apartments and sit on them to rent them out short term. Over time it created a situation where people who I would classify as "working poor", were without housing. It struck me as strange when I was in college to see SDF who have to go to work.
    - tjic 14y ago
      > This is exactly what happens in Paris. Housing market there is skewed due to exactly this behavior. Under any sane market, untapped demand creates its own supply. Big cities, though, have big governments that forbid new construction. This works very well for those who already own property (they have their rental prices driven up), and works very well for the politicians (who get donations from the existing property owners) but works poorly for everyone else.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
So AirBnB is supposed to know the laws of every single city/town/village/condo or home owner's association, or does this guy think New York is "special"?
- trauco 14y ago
  Answer from the article: "Perhaps it isn’t reasonable to expect the company, which believes it’s worth at least $2 billion according to a TechCrunch report on its latest fund-raising efforts, to track down every zoning law in tiny vacation hamlets. But it can certainly make the rules clear in urban areas where it knows that people like Mr. Warren could easily end up in hot water."
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I wonder if "making the rules clear" in some areas but not others opens them up to liability.
    - uptown 14y ago
      The guy likely signed a lease forbidding what he did. Every New York lease I've ever signed always clearly laid out that prohibition. The liability ends there.
  - Permit 14y ago
    If Airbnb started providing warnings about laws in various cities, wouldn't the lack of a warning for another area suggest there were no legal issues there? This seems like something you can't half-ass.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      In other areas, you can simply swap out the "This is Illegal" disclaimer with a "This might be illegal in your area, we don't know"
      - 14y ago
at-fates-hands 14y ago
They should know which cities they've had issues with and let their user know so they can stay informed. Having their users post warnings about particular cities would benefit everybody. Nothing is going to change unless a large class action suit is brought against Airbnb. I can tell you right now their site disclaimer won't help them in a court of law.
- tjic 14y ago
  > They should why?
woah 14y ago
I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. I'm assuming it's to maintain some sort of control and regulation over those who would establish unlicensed hotels on a commercial scale? For the welfare of the guests I suppose? I imagine in a world before the internet, this kind of thing was actually quite necessary. It would have been much harder to know any sort of details before booking a room in the night in a particular city (I don't know, I was born in 86). I'm guessing hotel regulations were written to maintain a baseline of quality, and regulations like the one this guy was fined under were written to keep people from getting around them. Similar to the regulations on driving people around for money that Getaround and others are being fined for, to keep you from hailing a cab driven by a drunken, unlicensed cabbie. At this point, though, it mainly seems that entrenched players like hotels and taxi companies are seeking rent. I love the quote from the SF landlord at the end, celebrating the fact that infractions like these can be used to evict tenants and raise rents. We love you too, Ms. New.
- zmitri 14y ago
  In the article it mentions neighbors not having to deal with ever changing tenants.
  - ollysb 14y ago
    This does sound a bit tenuous, what difference does it make if your neighbours change? You don't like people carrying luggage in the lift?
    - bcbrown 14y ago
      If your permanent neighbor has a loud party, you can talk to them about it the next day, and there's a decent chance you can come to an accommodation, since they have to live next to you too. If a transient neighbor is too loud, you have no "social" recourse, because they have no incentive to accommodate you.
    - chaz 14y ago
      In addition to bcbrown's comment, trust/security is a factor. Neighbors may allow their kids to play in the hallway or go down to the lobby and check the mail on their own. But if there's a sense that the neighbors aren't known, then parents may feel uneasy about it.
jrockway 14y ago
Today, I crossed the street in the middle of the block because it was more convenient than walking to a corner, waiting for the light, and then backtracking along the other side of the street. This is illegal, but I did it anyway because the reward was higher than the near-zero risk that I would get in trouble for doing it. People that run illegal hotels are doing the same thing: for every million guests, one guy gets a $45,000 fine. That works out to 4 cents per guest, which is a risk most people will take without thinking.
- duked 14y ago
  Your reasoning would be "ok" if Airbnb would absorb the cost of the fine. The problem here is that all the illegal part is done by the airbnb customer who offers his short term rental on the site and he is the one who has to pay the fine if any.
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    It's like if made an navigation app that tells you all the best places to jaywalk (and sold it to you), but failed to tell you that it's likely to eventually cost you $150.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      Or jail time, as in the case of an SF cyclist who was an avid competitor in Strava's ap comunity: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/chris_bucchere_cyclist_who_kil.php http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/chris_bucchere_c...
      - jrockway 14y ago
        Uh, he killed someone. That's just plain negligent.
        anigbrowl 14y ago
        It's criminal because he disregarded traffic signals (I believe he recently pleasded guilty BTW). It's also negligent when he gets sued by the decedent's relatives in civil court. That's not the app's fault, but it's not the only case where people have got into accidents because they were pursuing the status of fastest rider on a particular route. Where rewarding people (even intangibly) encourages them to push up against the limits of safety/legal restrictions, there's an argument for proximate causation, eg 'but for Appmaker's reward of an exclusive title (King of the Mountain) to the fastest cyclist on that stretch of road, Cyclist would not have habitually ridden at such high and dangerous speeds.' It's not a million miles away from prosecuting people for organizing street racing: http://twitdoc.com/upload/onaccel/san-diego-illegal-street-racing.pdf http://twitdoc.com/upload/onaccel/san-diego-illegal-street-r...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
goodcanadian 14y ago
The rules serve a lot of purposes: 1. To protect hotel owners and operators. 2. To protect consumers. They are guaranteed that the hotel has proper insurance, for example. 3. To protect neighbours. You can't open up a hotel in the house next door for much the same reasons that you can't open a pub or an aluminum smelter. 4. And yes, there is some rent seeking behaviour. I'll just mention transient accommodation taxes. You may agree or disagree with the various laws to various degrees, but you must admit that they exist for a reason. By all means discuss reforms that can be made, but please stop with the "these laws are stupid" or "serve no purpose" sort of sentiments.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  #1 is "a purpose" but not a good one. If hotels can't compete with Airbnb renters then that's their problem (assuming the regulatory playing field is level, which it may not be)
  - creativityland 14y ago
    #3 is definitely a problem for many as well.
  - goodcanadian 14y ago
    I think you misunderstood what I mean by protect. The laws set clear rules on what a hotel must provide. If the hotel follows those rules, they are protected from a lot of potential legal consequences. Or, to put it another way, the rules lay out a clear set of expectations that everyone can rely on. Airbnb owners are not protected in the same way because they are not (legally defined) hotel owners.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      This sense of protection -- ie, to be protected from the government -- is probably not the best use of words. Its akin to a protection racket (pay me and i won't hurt you). That being said, its still a valid point...hotel customers need "protection" from unscroupulous "hoteliers" becase, for example, they are tourists from a foreign country or small-town USA etc and are thus less sophisticated and make easy prey (historically) for scam-artists (bait ans switch rooms, or general hold-up probelms, etc). The Interesting question is this: Does the transparency and accountability of Online provide adequate protection? If it does not, does it have the potential to? Back in the day (like, pre-ww2) its easy to imagine things going on in hotels that hurt clients but were "behind the scenes" with no proof other than he-said-she-said. But now we have e-mail, terms of service, electronic booking, CCTV and other things that might change the calculus a bit--at the public policy level. Open for debate, at least.
kbutler 14y ago
This is especially ironic in light of the post-Sandy NYC-AirBnB "partnership": "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Airbnb today announced the launch of a new platform to help connect victims of Hurricane Sandy with free housing options. Airbnb is now providing a platform to connect those who are eager to offer free housing to those who have been displaced by the storm." http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2012b%2Fpr401-12.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1 http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4...
- creativityland 14y ago
  Didn't hear about this, interesting the article didn't mention it.
- Zimahl 14y ago
  I don't see any irony. Allowing someone to stay in your home as a guest is not the same as being paid for lodging. If AirBnB was there to facilitate people to open their homes for non-paying guests, none of this would be a problem. Although renters who rent out rooms outside of their landlord's permission are just asking for an eviction.
  - anotherbadlogin 14y ago
    It is the same thing when you look at several of the excuses for the fines and crackdowns: 1. Neighbors "have a right" to know who their neighbors are and not have numerous people traipsing through. 2. Hosts may not have appropriate insurance. 3. Emergency authorities have no idea who's in the building.
  - jvm 14y ago
    That was very much not the idea. People renting their apartments were in charging.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
beatpanda 14y ago
This is why trying to commodify sharing is a bad idea. CouchSurfing > AirBNB, Hitch hiking > Zimride, Sidecar, etc. There's still no enforceable law against generosity.
- izak30 14y ago
  Lots of places have laws about soliciting rides by the side of the road though.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
An interesting story. What is more interesting is that it sets up the entire game. Cities cap rents in an effort to rein in rapacious landlords, this 'traps' money in the system (whenever you artificially price something you open up the possibility that there is demand in excess of supply). AirBnb figures out a scheme to liberate that trapped money by enlisting the folks who are benefiting from the cap (tenants) at the expense of the folks who aren't getting the money (landlords). So it is totally in the selfish interest of landlords to hire a third party, have them avail themselves of the service at any building where the landlord has tenants and such a service is in violation of the rent, and then to use the resulting lease violation to evict the tenant, allowing rent to rise and then capturing the money for themselves. Its really really really important to read your lease. Seriously.
- liamgriffiths 14y ago
  Isn't renting a room for a few nights different than the guarantee of housing for months at a time? If not then why wouldn't the same landlord just do away with conventional leases and only rent on airbnb? They write the lease after all... but after all I'm just quibbling and maybe I'm wrong there.
- mc32 14y ago
  I wonder if there would be a new hotelier who might emerge who builds 'hotels' solely to rent out rooms via ABB to avoid some of the regular hoteling regulations.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Yes--this is already happening. Entire apt blocks (say 6 -12 units) set up to short-term-lease. The next-door property owners hate this (ie, short term = vargrants, if you are a snob) that is why they lobby for 30 day min-stay laws on sublets.
    - mc32 14y ago
      Interesting. I imagine if courts decide that ABB+lessors do not run afoul of housing/renting regulations and establish some precendence, it might make economic sense for someone to build an ABB hotel where only people booking via ABB and its decendats are booked, thus avoiding the regulation which runs up the price of other hoteling models.
fmitchell0 14y ago
This actually seems like an avenue for revenue for municipalities who have budget shortfalls. Create short-term, non-complicated licenses that expire after a couple of days. Require signature of surrounding neighbors. Charge $25. I can see that being good to the coffers.
caw 14y ago
I just got my electric bill from the city of Austin. On the newsletter, they mentioned that short term vacation leases ("vacation rentals by owner") require a license from the city. There's also a license for longer term rentals, but basically in Austin if you're going to rent your place (it sounds like Airbnb included), you need to get this license.
cdixon 14y ago
This follows a classic pattern. Incumbents once argued that having a 3rd wireless carrier per city was a threat to the public: http://cdixon.org/2012/10/10/regulatory-hacks/ http://cdixon.org/2012/10/10/regulatory-hacks/
anotherbadlogin 14y ago
Why the hell did they call the thing "Airbnb" instead of "AirBnB"? "Airbnb" makes no sense.
patmcguire 14y ago
Situation: If you have a roommate, since it's only illegal if you're not living there, can't you just have your roommate be the official leaser while you're out of town and pay you unofficially?
wwkeyboard 14y ago
My biggest problem with business models like AirBnB and Uber are that they don't solve the inefficiencies in the existing industry. Instead They transfer the risks inherent in the operations of those industries from businesses who understand, and therefore price according to, those risks, to individuals who don't. When the downsides of those risks happen, as in the case of the OP, the individual, who didn't understand or price according to that risk, is screwed. This is no different than the businesses who sold sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and then turned around and passed that risk off as bundled investments.
- chockablock 14y ago
  > they don't solve the inefficiencies in the existing industry I disagree. To use some examples given in the original article: how about a guest being able to rent a room in a neighborhood that doesn't have any hotels? Or a host being able to earn money renting out an apartment that would otherwise sit empty? Which is not to say that your other points about pricing and risk are not valid, of course.
  - wwkeyboard 14y ago
    Sometimes, but we don't know why there aren't rooms in those neighborhoods, or apartments sitting empty. If it's a genuine attempt to remove inefficiency, thats one thing, but an attempt to "beat the system"(the first part of sentence that talks about the empty rooms and location) may circumvent legitimate rules. For example HOA rules about subletting.
tabuchid 14y ago
"unless you are living in the home at the same time." What are the conditions for living in the home at the same time? What if my roomate is out of town and I'm the role of the host? Can the room still be rented? Does leaving for a few days really mean that I'm not living in the home?
colevscode 14y ago
This article presents a false dichotomy: "Could you afford the kinds of fines that Mr. Warren was facing? If not, take your listing down." This assumes that a majority of hosts are breaking the law. Yet early in the article the author claims: "...he was breaking the law. And that law says you cannot rent out single-family homes or apartments, or rooms in them, for less than 30 days unless you are living in the home at the same time." I've stayed at roughly a dozen AirBnB listings, and only once was the host not living in the home during my stay. In fact, as the article mentions, that's a big part of the AirBnB guest experience-- interacting with the hosts. Perhaps the problem is that many hosts are treating their homes as small hotels, letting out all the rooms and moving themselves elsewhere. Curtailing this practice would avoid legal issues and improve the guest experience. A win-win if you ask me!
cominatchu 14y ago
The law here clearly needs to evolve, and probably should have evolved by now. AirBnb wants to keep people safe, as it's in the best interest of their business. Some purposes of the law are also to keep people safe, but we need to revisit protectionist laws that restrict renting out parts of your home to others solely to protect hotels, and the fact that Airbnb has made it much safer to rent out your home (you can see people's reputations online, their social networks and who they know, Airbnb provides insurance, etc) means that some of the old laws aren't needed. What is clear to me is that this sort of spot enforcement is a waste of taxpayer money and doesn't serve to help anyone. I hope we can work towards real legal reform as companies like Airbnb and Uber drive innovation in our cities.
tptacek 14y ago
I have zero sympathy at all for renters facing eviction for housing Airbnb tenants. Those renters aren't being bitten by outdated regulations. They signed a contract that spelled out their obligations to the owner of the building, and the boilerplate version of that contract says that you can't add tenants (or replace your own obligation as a tenant during the term of the lease) without the owner's express approval. I love Airbnb. I have had nothing but good experiences with them directly and I hope they succeed beyond their wildest imaginings. But if you're a renter, not an owner, and letting your place out on Airbnb without checking your lease, you've reneged on a contract. Not a shrink-wrap or click-through or EULA, but an ink and paper contract that every tenants rights group in the country tells you to read carefully. The one time I've been in civil court ever was with a landlord; I have had nothing but bad experiences with landlords and think poorly of virtually every one I've had. But the flip side of that is, if I expect landlords to be compelled into making repairs or returning security deposits, I have to hold up my end of the contract as well. Airbnb shouldn't have to warn renters to read their damned leases.
- mamoswined 14y ago
  I'm really curious if there is a difference legally between giving the entire apartment to a guest for a week and letting the guest sleep in a spare bedroom.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If you read carefully, a lot of leases have specific clauses about guests too. There are limits in different jurisdictions about how enforceable some of these clauses are. But subletting contracts tend to hold up.
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Can you loophole around it by renting out someone else's apt and having them rent out yours on a quid pro quo basis? This means that the person staying in your home is not a friend of a friend and no longer a customer. It ceases to be a sublet, and is now you housing a friend's friend. Intent is there. But it gets you off the hook for breaking the contract. It instead puts you on the hook for inducing someone else to break a contract, which is a harder case to prove.
weisser 14y ago
A family member owns a condo that I considered suggesting they put on Airbnb. Then I thought about how other condo owners currently have a conniption fit when they think people (guests) are getting access to the building that shouldn't. I cannot imagine the amount of hell that would be unleashed if they saw so many random people coming and going. Even if there was nothing in the bylaws I could see them causing my relatives massive headache. Conversely, the entranceway door to a condo is a security feature that all owners have a shared responsibility for. If I was one of the other owners (or even a renter) how would I feel about another person renting their condo out on a nightly basis to anyone willing to pay for it? I'm pretty torn on the issue.
otterley 14y ago
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. The reason Airbnb isn't providing (and are unlikely to provide) legal warnings to its prospective hosts is that instead of being on the hook for one potential legal violation (N.Y. MDW. Law section 304(1)(a)), they'd be on the hook for two. Advising hosts to obey the local laws in its jurisdiction is pretty harmless. Advising hosts what the law is, on the other hand, could be construed as the unauthorized practice of law, and could get Airbnb into even more hot water. See, e.g., N.Y. Judiciary Law section 495.
001sky 14y ago
His complaint with Airbnb remains, though. “They need to start being a little more responsible and acknowledging what happened and providing a warning to users,” he said. “They’re in some kind of fight with the cities, and the users are paying the price.” -- Says guy who doesn't care/read what he signs?
jash 14y ago
As an airbnb host and user for more than 2 years, I would just like to say that I find Airbnb to always accessible and thorough in all matters related to my experience. They have taken the measure to have insurance in which to protect those renting out. I do not expect them to keep me abreast of laws ordinances in my neighborhood as that is my due diligence. I have been completely thrilled with my experience and recommend it to others.

142 points by trauco 14y ago

aba_sababa 14y ago

Was this paid for by hotel interests? I'm really trying to understand the depth of PR in the news.

duked 14y ago
couldn't it simply be a genuine customer review. I honestly think there's no PR from hotel lobby here.
jordan0day 14y ago
I can understand your sentiment, and you might be entirely correct to presume there's an agenda being pushed. That said, it's a legitimate story. People are breaking the law and not even aware of it. Even if it is a "hit" piece, the concern is real.
uptown 14y ago
Given the choice, I'd imagine hotels would prefer AirBNB's name not get any mainstream press - good or bad.
fennecfoxen 14y ago
Yeah, I mean, ignorance of the law and injustice of the law is no excuse in court, but it's a perfectly good moral excuse.
bcoates 14y ago
The NYT does have a hate-on for AirBnB. I'm not sure if it's because it's stepping on some toes that have influence there or if they're just not glamored by the new tech aspect like everyone else. Or maybe AirBnB is similar enough to craigslist and newspapers hate craigslist because it killed print.
- danso 14y ago
  What's with the need to see a conspiracy in everything? Is it so hard to see how housing laws, which NYC residents LOVE when it comes to rent control and tenant rights, inherently conflict with the freedom for a renter to rent out the apartment for a profit? I'm all for critical thinking, but not when it flouts occam's Razor just for the hell of it.
  - aba_sababa 14y ago
    I agree in theory, but PG posted some pretty damning stuff about the reach of PR in the news, and I want to know how far that reach goes down. In this article, the author specifically says, "yo, you shouldn't airbnb." That's a bit more than just reporting the facts.
    - bcoates 14y ago
      Hometown bias against a weird foreign service contrary to local norms is a pretty reasonable explanation. Sometimes I forget what the NY in NYT stands for :)
sks 14y ago
It may be paid for by some hotel lobby, that does not invalidate the story. (Assuming that the facts and the stories reported are true)

rm999 14y ago

Five figure fines are completely unreasonable, the fault lies with NYC and the hotels who lobbied for these laws. Short-term housing is really bad for a city whose economy benefits so much from tourism; tiny hotel rooms start at 250/night. Airbnb is a really optimal solution. My neighbor is an airbnb apartment. At first it bothered me that new people were staying there every week, but I realized the benefits. The people who stay there are always quiet and respectful, and I know the place is cleaned regularly (no rats/cockroaches coming from there). I think it works out well for my landlord too.

tomkarlo 14y ago
Lodging laws aren't there just to protect hotels. They exist to protect consumers and residents as well by setting standards for safety, etc. and helping pay for the services provided to guests by the municipality. If you take AirBNB to its logical conclusion, you end up with landlords renting apartments on AirBNB instead of to actual residents, because they can make more that way -- because they're ducking the rules on offering commercial lodging, not paying for proper insurance, not paying taxes, etc. I'm sure if someone ran a hotel but didn't bother with commercial fire codes and local taxes, they could charge less too.
- bilbo0s 14y ago
  "...If you take AirBNB to its logical conclusion, you end up with landlords renting apartments on AirBNB instead of to actual residents, because they can make more that way..." This is exactly what happens in Paris. Housing market there is skewed due to exactly this behavior. People buy apartments and sit on them to rent them out short term. Over time it created a situation where people who I would classify as "working poor", were without housing. It struck me as strange when I was in college to see SDF who have to go to work.
  - tjic 14y ago
    > This is exactly what happens in Paris. Housing market there is skewed due to exactly this behavior. Under any sane market, untapped demand creates its own supply. Big cities, though, have big governments that forbid new construction. This works very well for those who already own property (they have their rental prices driven up), and works very well for the politicians (who get donations from the existing property owners) but works poorly for everyone else.

Turing_Machine 14y ago

So AirBnB is supposed to know the laws of every single city/town/village/condo or home owner's association, or does this guy think New York is "special"?

trauco 14y ago
Answer from the article: "Perhaps it isn’t reasonable to expect the company, which believes it’s worth at least $2 billion according to a TechCrunch report on its latest fund-raising efforts, to track down every zoning law in tiny vacation hamlets. But it can certainly make the rules clear in urban areas where it knows that people like Mr. Warren could easily end up in hot water."
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I wonder if "making the rules clear" in some areas but not others opens them up to liability.
  - uptown 14y ago
    The guy likely signed a lease forbidding what he did. Every New York lease I've ever signed always clearly laid out that prohibition. The liability ends there.
- Permit 14y ago
  If Airbnb started providing warnings about laws in various cities, wouldn't the lack of a warning for another area suggest there were no legal issues there? This seems like something you can't half-ass.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    In other areas, you can simply swap out the "This is Illegal" disclaimer with a "This might be illegal in your area, we don't know"
    - 14y ago

at-fates-hands 14y ago

They should know which cities they've had issues with and let their user know so they can stay informed. Having their users post warnings about particular cities would benefit everybody. Nothing is going to change unless a large class action suit is brought against Airbnb. I can tell you right now their site disclaimer won't help them in a court of law.

tjic 14y ago
> They should why?

woah 14y ago

I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. I'm assuming it's to maintain some sort of control and regulation over those who would establish unlicensed hotels on a commercial scale? For the welfare of the guests I suppose? I imagine in a world before the internet, this kind of thing was actually quite necessary. It would have been much harder to know any sort of details before booking a room in the night in a particular city (I don't know, I was born in 86). I'm guessing hotel regulations were written to maintain a baseline of quality, and regulations like the one this guy was fined under were written to keep people from getting around them. Similar to the regulations on driving people around for money that Getaround and others are being fined for, to keep you from hailing a cab driven by a drunken, unlicensed cabbie. At this point, though, it mainly seems that entrenched players like hotels and taxi companies are seeking rent. I love the quote from the SF landlord at the end, celebrating the fact that infractions like these can be used to evict tenants and raise rents. We love you too, Ms. New.

zmitri 14y ago
In the article it mentions neighbors not having to deal with ever changing tenants.
- ollysb 14y ago
  This does sound a bit tenuous, what difference does it make if your neighbours change? You don't like people carrying luggage in the lift?
  - bcbrown 14y ago
    If your permanent neighbor has a loud party, you can talk to them about it the next day, and there's a decent chance you can come to an accommodation, since they have to live next to you too. If a transient neighbor is too loud, you have no "social" recourse, because they have no incentive to accommodate you.
  - chaz 14y ago
    In addition to bcbrown's comment, trust/security is a factor. Neighbors may allow their kids to play in the hallway or go down to the lobby and check the mail on their own. But if there's a sense that the neighbors aren't known, then parents may feel uneasy about it.

jrockway 14y ago

Today, I crossed the street in the middle of the block because it was more convenient than walking to a corner, waiting for the light, and then backtracking along the other side of the street. This is illegal, but I did it anyway because the reward was higher than the near-zero risk that I would get in trouble for doing it. People that run illegal hotels are doing the same thing: for every million guests, one guy gets a $45,000 fine. That works out to 4 cents per guest, which is a risk most people will take without thinking.

duked 14y ago
Your reasoning would be "ok" if Airbnb would absorb the cost of the fine. The problem here is that all the illegal part is done by the airbnb customer who offers his short term rental on the site and he is the one who has to pay the fine if any.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  It's like if made an navigation app that tells you all the best places to jaywalk (and sold it to you), but failed to tell you that it's likely to eventually cost you $150.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Or jail time, as in the case of an SF cyclist who was an avid competitor in Strava's ap comunity: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/chris_bucchere_cyclist_who_kil.php http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/06/chris_bucchere_c...
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Uh, he killed someone. That's just plain negligent.
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        It's criminal because he disregarded traffic signals (I believe he recently pleasded guilty BTW). It's also negligent when he gets sued by the decedent's relatives in civil court. That's not the app's fault, but it's not the only case where people have got into accidents because they were pursuing the status of fastest rider on a particular route. Where rewarding people (even intangibly) encourages them to push up against the limits of safety/legal restrictions, there's an argument for proximate causation, eg 'but for Appmaker's reward of an exclusive title (King of the Mountain) to the fastest cyclist on that stretch of road, Cyclist would not have habitually ridden at such high and dangerous speeds.' It's not a million miles away from prosecuting people for organizing street racing: http://twitdoc.com/upload/onaccel/san-diego-illegal-street-racing.pdf http://twitdoc.com/upload/onaccel/san-diego-illegal-street-r...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

goodcanadian 14y ago

The rules serve a lot of purposes: 1. To protect hotel owners and operators. 2. To protect consumers. They are guaranteed that the hotel has proper insurance, for example. 3. To protect neighbours. You can't open up a hotel in the house next door for much the same reasons that you can't open a pub or an aluminum smelter. 4. And yes, there is some rent seeking behaviour. I'll just mention transient accommodation taxes. You may agree or disagree with the various laws to various degrees, but you must admit that they exist for a reason. By all means discuss reforms that can be made, but please stop with the "these laws are stupid" or "serve no purpose" sort of sentiments.

tlrobinson 14y ago
#1 is "a purpose" but not a good one. If hotels can't compete with Airbnb renters then that's their problem (assuming the regulatory playing field is level, which it may not be)
- creativityland 14y ago
  #3 is definitely a problem for many as well.
- goodcanadian 14y ago
  I think you misunderstood what I mean by protect. The laws set clear rules on what a hotel must provide. If the hotel follows those rules, they are protected from a lot of potential legal consequences. Or, to put it another way, the rules lay out a clear set of expectations that everyone can rely on. Airbnb owners are not protected in the same way because they are not (legally defined) hotel owners.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    This sense of protection -- ie, to be protected from the government -- is probably not the best use of words. Its akin to a protection racket (pay me and i won't hurt you). That being said, its still a valid point...hotel customers need "protection" from unscroupulous "hoteliers" becase, for example, they are tourists from a foreign country or small-town USA etc and are thus less sophisticated and make easy prey (historically) for scam-artists (bait ans switch rooms, or general hold-up probelms, etc). The Interesting question is this: Does the transparency and accountability of Online provide adequate protection? If it does not, does it have the potential to? Back in the day (like, pre-ww2) its easy to imagine things going on in hotels that hurt clients but were "behind the scenes" with no proof other than he-said-she-said. But now we have e-mail, terms of service, electronic booking, CCTV and other things that might change the calculus a bit--at the public policy level. Open for debate, at least.

kbutler 14y ago

This is especially ironic in light of the post-Sandy NYC-AirBnB "partnership": "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Airbnb today announced the launch of a new platform to help connect victims of Hurricane Sandy with free housing options. Airbnb is now providing a platform to connect those who are eager to offer free housing to those who have been displaced by the storm." http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2012b%2Fpr401-12.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1 http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4...

creativityland 14y ago
Didn't hear about this, interesting the article didn't mention it.
Zimahl 14y ago
I don't see any irony. Allowing someone to stay in your home as a guest is not the same as being paid for lodging. If AirBnB was there to facilitate people to open their homes for non-paying guests, none of this would be a problem. Although renters who rent out rooms outside of their landlord's permission are just asking for an eviction.
- anotherbadlogin 14y ago
  It is the same thing when you look at several of the excuses for the fines and crackdowns: 1. Neighbors "have a right" to know who their neighbors are and not have numerous people traipsing through. 2. Hosts may not have appropriate insurance. 3. Emergency authorities have no idea who's in the building.
- jvm 14y ago
  That was very much not the idea. People renting their apartments were in charging.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago

beatpanda 14y ago

This is why trying to commodify sharing is a bad idea. CouchSurfing > AirBNB, Hitch hiking > Zimride, Sidecar, etc. There's still no enforceable law against generosity.

izak30 14y ago
Lots of places have laws about soliciting rides by the side of the road though.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

An interesting story. What is more interesting is that it sets up the entire game. Cities cap rents in an effort to rein in rapacious landlords, this 'traps' money in the system (whenever you artificially price something you open up the possibility that there is demand in excess of supply). AirBnb figures out a scheme to liberate that trapped money by enlisting the folks who are benefiting from the cap (tenants) at the expense of the folks who aren't getting the money (landlords). So it is totally in the selfish interest of landlords to hire a third party, have them avail themselves of the service at any building where the landlord has tenants and such a service is in violation of the rent, and then to use the resulting lease violation to evict the tenant, allowing rent to rise and then capturing the money for themselves. Its really really really important to read your lease. Seriously.

liamgriffiths 14y ago
Isn't renting a room for a few nights different than the guarantee of housing for months at a time? If not then why wouldn't the same landlord just do away with conventional leases and only rent on airbnb? They write the lease after all... but after all I'm just quibbling and maybe I'm wrong there.
mc32 14y ago
I wonder if there would be a new hotelier who might emerge who builds 'hotels' solely to rent out rooms via ABB to avoid some of the regular hoteling regulations.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Yes--this is already happening. Entire apt blocks (say 6 -12 units) set up to short-term-lease. The next-door property owners hate this (ie, short term = vargrants, if you are a snob) that is why they lobby for 30 day min-stay laws on sublets.
  - mc32 14y ago
    Interesting. I imagine if courts decide that ABB+lessors do not run afoul of housing/renting regulations and establish some precendence, it might make economic sense for someone to build an ABB hotel where only people booking via ABB and its decendats are booked, thus avoiding the regulation which runs up the price of other hoteling models.

fmitchell0 14y ago

This actually seems like an avenue for revenue for municipalities who have budget shortfalls. Create short-term, non-complicated licenses that expire after a couple of days. Require signature of surrounding neighbors. Charge $25. I can see that being good to the coffers.

caw 14y ago

I just got my electric bill from the city of Austin. On the newsletter, they mentioned that short term vacation leases ("vacation rentals by owner") require a license from the city. There's also a license for longer term rentals, but basically in Austin if you're going to rent your place (it sounds like Airbnb included), you need to get this license.

cdixon 14y ago

This follows a classic pattern. Incumbents once argued that having a 3rd wireless carrier per city was a threat to the public: http://cdixon.org/2012/10/10/regulatory-hacks/ http://cdixon.org/2012/10/10/regulatory-hacks/

anotherbadlogin 14y ago

Why the hell did they call the thing "Airbnb" instead of "AirBnB"? "Airbnb" makes no sense.

patmcguire 14y ago

Situation: If you have a roommate, since it's only illegal if you're not living there, can't you just have your roommate be the official leaser while you're out of town and pay you unofficially?

wwkeyboard 14y ago

My biggest problem with business models like AirBnB and Uber are that they don't solve the inefficiencies in the existing industry. Instead They transfer the risks inherent in the operations of those industries from businesses who understand, and therefore price according to, those risks, to individuals who don't. When the downsides of those risks happen, as in the case of the OP, the individual, who didn't understand or price according to that risk, is screwed. This is no different than the businesses who sold sub-prime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and then turned around and passed that risk off as bundled investments.

chockablock 14y ago
> they don't solve the inefficiencies in the existing industry I disagree. To use some examples given in the original article: how about a guest being able to rent a room in a neighborhood that doesn't have any hotels? Or a host being able to earn money renting out an apartment that would otherwise sit empty? Which is not to say that your other points about pricing and risk are not valid, of course.
- wwkeyboard 14y ago
  Sometimes, but we don't know why there aren't rooms in those neighborhoods, or apartments sitting empty. If it's a genuine attempt to remove inefficiency, thats one thing, but an attempt to "beat the system"(the first part of sentence that talks about the empty rooms and location) may circumvent legitimate rules. For example HOA rules about subletting.

tabuchid 14y ago

"unless you are living in the home at the same time." What are the conditions for living in the home at the same time? What if my roomate is out of town and I'm the role of the host? Can the room still be rented? Does leaving for a few days really mean that I'm not living in the home?

colevscode 14y ago

This article presents a false dichotomy: "Could you afford the kinds of fines that Mr. Warren was facing? If not, take your listing down." This assumes that a majority of hosts are breaking the law. Yet early in the article the author claims: "...he was breaking the law. And that law says you cannot rent out single-family homes or apartments, or rooms in them, for less than 30 days unless you are living in the home at the same time." I've stayed at roughly a dozen AirBnB listings, and only once was the host not living in the home during my stay. In fact, as the article mentions, that's a big part of the AirBnB guest experience-- interacting with the hosts. Perhaps the problem is that many hosts are treating their homes as small hotels, letting out all the rooms and moving themselves elsewhere. Curtailing this practice would avoid legal issues and improve the guest experience. A win-win if you ask me!

cominatchu 14y ago

The law here clearly needs to evolve, and probably should have evolved by now. AirBnb wants to keep people safe, as it's in the best interest of their business. Some purposes of the law are also to keep people safe, but we need to revisit protectionist laws that restrict renting out parts of your home to others solely to protect hotels, and the fact that Airbnb has made it much safer to rent out your home (you can see people's reputations online, their social networks and who they know, Airbnb provides insurance, etc) means that some of the old laws aren't needed. What is clear to me is that this sort of spot enforcement is a waste of taxpayer money and doesn't serve to help anyone. I hope we can work towards real legal reform as companies like Airbnb and Uber drive innovation in our cities.

tptacek 14y ago

I have zero sympathy at all for renters facing eviction for housing Airbnb tenants. Those renters aren't being bitten by outdated regulations. They signed a contract that spelled out their obligations to the owner of the building, and the boilerplate version of that contract says that you can't add tenants (or replace your own obligation as a tenant during the term of the lease) without the owner's express approval. I love Airbnb. I have had nothing but good experiences with them directly and I hope they succeed beyond their wildest imaginings. But if you're a renter, not an owner, and letting your place out on Airbnb without checking your lease, you've reneged on a contract. Not a shrink-wrap or click-through or EULA, but an ink and paper contract that every tenants rights group in the country tells you to read carefully. The one time I've been in civil court ever was with a landlord; I have had nothing but bad experiences with landlords and think poorly of virtually every one I've had. But the flip side of that is, if I expect landlords to be compelled into making repairs or returning security deposits, I have to hold up my end of the contract as well. Airbnb shouldn't have to warn renters to read their damned leases.

mamoswined 14y ago
I'm really curious if there is a difference legally between giving the entire apartment to a guest for a week and letting the guest sleep in a spare bedroom.
- tptacek 14y ago
  If you read carefully, a lot of leases have specific clauses about guests too. There are limits in different jurisdictions about how enforceable some of these clauses are. But subletting contracts tend to hold up.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Can you loophole around it by renting out someone else's apt and having them rent out yours on a quid pro quo basis? This means that the person staying in your home is not a friend of a friend and no longer a customer. It ceases to be a sublet, and is now you housing a friend's friend. Intent is there. But it gets you off the hook for breaking the contract. It instead puts you on the hook for inducing someone else to break a contract, which is a harder case to prove.

weisser 14y ago

A family member owns a condo that I considered suggesting they put on Airbnb. Then I thought about how other condo owners currently have a conniption fit when they think people (guests) are getting access to the building that shouldn't. I cannot imagine the amount of hell that would be unleashed if they saw so many random people coming and going. Even if there was nothing in the bylaws I could see them causing my relatives massive headache. Conversely, the entranceway door to a condo is a security feature that all owners have a shared responsibility for. If I was one of the other owners (or even a renter) how would I feel about another person renting their condo out on a nightly basis to anyone willing to pay for it? I'm pretty torn on the issue.

otterley 14y ago

I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. The reason Airbnb isn't providing (and are unlikely to provide) legal warnings to its prospective hosts is that instead of being on the hook for one potential legal violation (N.Y. MDW. Law section 304(1)(a)), they'd be on the hook for two. Advising hosts to obey the local laws in its jurisdiction is pretty harmless. Advising hosts what the law is, on the other hand, could be construed as the unauthorized practice of law, and could get Airbnb into even more hot water. See, e.g., N.Y. Judiciary Law section 495.

001sky 14y ago

His complaint with Airbnb remains, though. “They need to start being a little more responsible and acknowledging what happened and providing a warning to users,” he said. “They’re in some kind of fight with the cities, and the users are paying the price.” -- Says guy who doesn't care/read what he signs?

jash 14y ago

As an airbnb host and user for more than 2 years, I would just like to say that I find Airbnb to always accessible and thorough in all matters related to my experience. They have taken the measure to have insurance in which to protect those renting out. I do not expect them to keep me abreast of laws ordinances in my neighborhood as that is my due diligence. I have been completely thrilled with my experience and recommend it to others.