4 ms·

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 regula

by 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.
maratd 14y ago
> I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. Business Interest: If everybody rented extra unused "space" and the market was fluid, this would substantially impact the profitability of the hospitality industry. Public Interest: Who wants to live next to a hotel? ### If you want the laws to go, you'll need to build a larger business constituency for lobbying and then convince the public that their private property rights are being violated. Two step process.
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  There's a security issue as well: Most buildings base their security on the idea that only tenants, or limited guests of tenants, will be allowed through the front door and into the complex. If the next door apartment starts renting to a different person each night, the security (perceived or not) that you once had inside your building or complex has been compromised. Also, having an apartment on your floor that's being rented out often means the social norms associated with close neighbors aren't respected in terms of noise, etc.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  But an economist here would point out that the incentives for the hotel industry to lobby for these laws are large and concentrated, while the incentives for the rest of the world to lobby against it are small and spread out. Because of the nontrivial cost of collaboration, the large and concentrated incentives win every time, the economy at large suffers a deadweight loss, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (If you meet a Republican or Libertarian who praises deregulation of something, this is a primary reason why.)
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. That is not what Adam Smith says. His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized, since those proposals are almost always meant to further the interests of the business owners rather than the public. He does not assume the same of regulation in general, and is much more sympathetic to the interests of households and laborers than is commonly supposed. convince the public that their private property rights are being violated You don't have a property interest in a tenant lease whose terms you choose to violate. Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room, as long as you yourself are there to take responsibility for the behavior of your guests.
jcdavis 14y ago
I live in SF and I have no issue with landlords evicting tenants who were being AirBnB hosts. Realize that: 1) The housing market in SF is crazy right now (obviously this is hardly their fault) 2) There are thousands of available AirBnB rooms available in SF. A quick search far out returns over 2700 - thats 2700 (or more) rooms that people could be living in. 3) San Francisco has very strict rent control (whether or not that is a good thing is out of the scope of this comment), so in many cases tenants are reaping far more money from Airbnb then they pay in rent because their rent effectively hasn't increased, ever. This is absurdly disfunctional. 4) Regardless of laws, short term rentals are already against more or less against every lease agreement or HOA agreement. I really couldn't care less about the hotel industry.
- woah 14y ago
  #3 is a good point. I agree on the overblown rent control laws here.
- bitcartel 14y ago
  Worth watching: Growing up poor in San Francisco. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-kids/seras-story/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k...
  - weisser 14y ago
    This is heartbreaking. This 11 year old girl seems extremely gifted. Her vocabulary and insight in astounding. She could be the next great innovator or artist but we don't do enough to help people like her act on their potential.
- jvm 14y ago
  #1, #3 are all different ways of saying that the housing supply in SF is very tight. That's a situation where creating more supply by renting out your room when you go on trips can be really helpful. Supply goes up, demand stays the same, rents fall. #2 I think is an exaggeration of what's happening. Most places listed on AirBNB are occupied by owners putting their place up when they leave town. A few maybe not, but even in that case, why favor long-term renters over short-term renters? #4 is a great point, but insurmountably restrictive laws make things worse by not allowing people to come to negotiated agreements with their landlords on using AirBNB. E.g., I'm sure landlords would be more amenable if they got a cut. My take on this is that the problem here is that it's basically impossible to jump through the hoops necessary to legitimately rent out your room for a weekend, and that seems silly. You should be able to just fill out a form with the city, maybe pay a registration fee, and agree to comply with regulations.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tomkarlo 14y ago
Hotels and registered lodging providers (including B&Bs) are subject to a range of safety regulations in terms of occupancy, fire codes, inspections, etc. Things we take for granted, like fire sprinklers, fire alarms, multiple exit routs and backup illumination. They're important when you have a bunch of people in a building who are probably unfamiliar with its layout, like a hotel or commercial space. They're also generally going to be required by anyone willing to write liability insurance, etc for the business. Additionally, you have taxes and fees charged by a city that help defray the cost of regulating and inspecting those providers, as well as helping cover city services utilized by visitors (who probably do not pay income tax, etc locally.) I suspect that if AirBNB users had to carry commercial liability insurance, submit to inspections and file proper taxes, the appeal of hosting would go way down.
tomkarlo 14y ago
In terms of fire and safety codes for hotels, there's a saying that they're "written in blood" - they often arise in response to a major tragedy or disaster. Generally, the industry fights them tooth and nail, despite what everyone here is saying about protectionism, etc. For example, Nevada enacted statewide regulations on sprinklers and other fire safety in large hotels after the 1980 MGM Grand fire, which killed 87 and injured 700: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1980/nov/23/mgm-fire-may-mean-billion-dollar-loss/?history http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1980/nov/23/mgm-fire-may-mea... (Vegas in particular seems to have a major hotel fire about every 10 years.) There's also the aspect of protecting travelers - you often book at a hotel sight unseen, and when you get there you don't really have any ability to assess the safety of a lodging. It's one of those places where the free market is just not going to work that well, since you can't expect everyone to be a fire inspector.

by woah 14y ago

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.

maratd 14y ago

> I'm wondering if anyone can illuminate us on the ostensible purpose of these types of regulations. Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. Business Interest: If everybody rented extra unused "space" and the market was fluid, this would substantially impact the profitability of the hospitality industry. Public Interest: Who wants to live next to a hotel? ### If you want the laws to go, you'll need to build a larger business constituency for lobbying and then convince the public that their private property rights are being violated. Two step process.

tomkarlo 14y ago
There's a security issue as well: Most buildings base their security on the idea that only tenants, or limited guests of tenants, will be allowed through the front door and into the complex. If the next door apartment starts renting to a different person each night, the security (perceived or not) that you once had inside your building or complex has been compromised. Also, having an apartment on your floor that's being rented out often means the social norms associated with close neighbors aren't respected in terms of noise, etc.
fennecfoxen 14y ago
But an economist here would point out that the incentives for the hotel industry to lobby for these laws are large and concentrated, while the incentives for the rest of the world to lobby against it are small and spread out. Because of the nontrivial cost of collaboration, the large and concentrated incentives win every time, the economy at large suffers a deadweight loss, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (If you meet a Republican or Libertarian who praises deregulation of something, this is a primary reason why.)
anigbrowl 14y ago
Adam Smith is useful here. All regulation is created on behalf of business interests and is justified through the public interest. That is not what Adam Smith says. His argument that regulations proposed by men of business should be closely scrutinized, since those proposals are almost always meant to further the interests of the business owners rather than the public. He does not assume the same of regulation in general, and is much more sympathetic to the interests of households and laborers than is commonly supposed. convince the public that their private property rights are being violated You don't have a property interest in a tenant lease whose terms you choose to violate. Note from the article that it's perfectly OK to let your spare room, as long as you yourself are there to take responsibility for the behavior of your guests.

jcdavis 14y ago

I live in SF and I have no issue with landlords evicting tenants who were being AirBnB hosts. Realize that: 1) The housing market in SF is crazy right now (obviously this is hardly their fault) 2) There are thousands of available AirBnB rooms available in SF. A quick search far out returns over 2700 - thats 2700 (or more) rooms that people could be living in. 3) San Francisco has very strict rent control (whether or not that is a good thing is out of the scope of this comment), so in many cases tenants are reaping far more money from Airbnb then they pay in rent because their rent effectively hasn't increased, ever. This is absurdly disfunctional. 4) Regardless of laws, short term rentals are already against more or less against every lease agreement or HOA agreement. I really couldn't care less about the hotel industry.

woah 14y ago
#3 is a good point. I agree on the overblown rent control laws here.
bitcartel 14y ago
Worth watching: Growing up poor in San Francisco. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-kids/seras-story/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/social-issues/poor-k...
- weisser 14y ago
  This is heartbreaking. This 11 year old girl seems extremely gifted. Her vocabulary and insight in astounding. She could be the next great innovator or artist but we don't do enough to help people like her act on their potential.
jvm 14y ago
#1, #3 are all different ways of saying that the housing supply in SF is very tight. That's a situation where creating more supply by renting out your room when you go on trips can be really helpful. Supply goes up, demand stays the same, rents fall. #2 I think is an exaggeration of what's happening. Most places listed on AirBNB are occupied by owners putting their place up when they leave town. A few maybe not, but even in that case, why favor long-term renters over short-term renters? #4 is a great point, but insurmountably restrictive laws make things worse by not allowing people to come to negotiated agreements with their landlords on using AirBNB. E.g., I'm sure landlords would be more amenable if they got a cut. My take on this is that the problem here is that it's basically impossible to jump through the hoops necessary to legitimately rent out your room for a weekend, and that seems silly. You should be able to just fill out a form with the city, maybe pay a registration fee, and agree to comply with regulations.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tomkarlo 14y ago

Hotels and registered lodging providers (including B&Bs) are subject to a range of safety regulations in terms of occupancy, fire codes, inspections, etc. Things we take for granted, like fire sprinklers, fire alarms, multiple exit routs and backup illumination. They're important when you have a bunch of people in a building who are probably unfamiliar with its layout, like a hotel or commercial space. They're also generally going to be required by anyone willing to write liability insurance, etc for the business. Additionally, you have taxes and fees charged by a city that help defray the cost of regulating and inspecting those providers, as well as helping cover city services utilized by visitors (who probably do not pay income tax, etc locally.) I suspect that if AirBNB users had to carry commercial liability insurance, submit to inspections and file proper taxes, the appeal of hosting would go way down.

tomkarlo 14y ago

In terms of fire and safety codes for hotels, there's a saying that they're "written in blood" - they often arise in response to a major tragedy or disaster. Generally, the industry fights them tooth and nail, despite what everyone here is saying about protectionism, etc. For example, Nevada enacted statewide regulations on sprinklers and other fire safety in large hotels after the 1980 MGM Grand fire, which killed 87 and injured 700: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1980/nov/23/mgm-fire-may-mean-billion-dollar-loss/?history http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1980/nov/23/mgm-fire-may-mea... (Vegas in particular seems to have a major hotel fire about every 10 years.) There's also the aspect of protecting travelers - you often book at a hotel sight unseen, and when you get there you don't really have any ability to assess the safety of a lodging. It's one of those places where the free market is just not going to work that well, since you can't expect everyone to be a fire inspector.