6 ms·

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,

• 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.
      • goodcanadian 14y ago
        Wow . . . I am doing a bad job of keeping my message clear. Yes, of course, I mean protected from the government, but I also mean protected from customers, and protected from less scrupulous competition (which may be uncomfortably close to the point that tlrobinson was trying to make, but you have to understand that the airbnb owners are generally not following the same rules that the hotels are required to). I am just waiting for the first time someone gets sued because they didn't post the rates and a map to the fire escape on the back of the door.
        • 001sky 14y ago
          No worries, "consumer protection" laws and "protection racket" are quasi-idomatic expressions. [1] e.g. even here in your example of the fire: its true that not-breaking the law "protects you" from being prosecuted. But the law itself (ie=must show fire escape) is called a "consumer protection" law (ie, by idiom). Its not on the books to keep the hotelier out of jail...it's on the books to keep the consumer from dying in a fire because s/he gets lost =D/. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
      • mkenyon 14y ago
        Further to your question: Hotels in Rhode Island are required to post in each room that if you put your railroad mileage books (among other things) in the safe, the hotel is not liable for loss of said property. These laws were first drafted in the 19th century.
        • bhickey 14y ago
          General Law 5-14-1 covers: "any money, jewels, jewelry, watches, ornaments, railroad mileage books and tickets, bank notes, bonds, negotiable securities, and precious stones" Framing it as an absurd, antiquated law is hardly charitable.
          • 001sky 14y ago
            This is a little harsh, although this is good info/context. The salient nugget is that the laws are ones that are both old do not get updated often. It would be more fair to say words to the effect that "the counter-argument is they have withstood the test of time". But the fact that they still write "railroad mileabge books" instead of "Transportation Tickets" or some-such, is indicative of the lack of iteration. At least at first glance, to an outsider. Nothing against RI. It does suggest that looking at these laws en-toto and updating them for modern living (lifestyles, technology, etc) might warranted. And that updates might-be net-beneficial to society. Its not clear they need whole-sale revision thought. We're going through this now with e-mail and cloud privacy laws that are out of date, too. Its not just a cheap shot at one state or one industry.
    • nateabele 14y ago
      Your argument here might be relevant if people are falsely led to believe that they are, in fact, doing business with a hotel, rather than a private individual with a residence. We already have laws that govern private contracts between individuals, protect private property, and protect individuals from being an undue burden on one another.
      • anigbrowl 14y ago
        The common law of contract and tort is essentially the history of existing laws proving inadequate to forestall unwanted outcomes.
  • mathgladiator 14y ago
    I #1 is not so much to protect "hotels" so much as to protect "property owners". Suppose you rent out your condo; do you have the proper insurance to engage in that activity? After all, insurance is just another form of betting. When you rent out your stuff, as the owner, what types of protections do you have from renters.
    • Dylan16807 14y ago
      I've never understood this analogy. Isn't insurance the exact opposite of betting, with a small fee tacked on? It ideally eliminates chance.
• sks 14y ago
  These regulations are definitely not stupid. Hotels keep detailed records of who checked in and out which can be used by law enforcement. If people are allowed to sublease their places they would have to build a similar infrastructure else it will become easier to evade law enforcement.
  • zerostar07 14y ago
    Airbnb provides the infrastructure, withholding much more information than a typical hotel frond desk.
• Permit 14y ago
  >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. How about this: "These laws do not exist in most places and those places haven't descended into anarchy, nor have they suffered any visible damage because they don't have them. Therefore it might be reasonable to suspect these laws aren't needed".
  • tomkarlo 14y ago
    Except they do exist in most places, in one form or another. Can you point to some places that don't require hotel operators to submit to some kind of licensing / regulation? These laws aren't new - UK lodging laws go back several hundred years.
    • Permit 14y ago
      An individual offering a short-term sublease is not equivalent to a hotel operator offering tens or hundreds of rooms. Can you point out why you'd equate the two?
      • tomkarlo 14y ago
        Small operators are generally regulated as well, at least in most places. There were small lodging operators (1-5 rooms) long before there were huge hotels. If you run a bed & breakfast (<10 rooms, generally) you are still subject to regulations that a private homeowner would not have to comply with.
        • Dylan16807 14y ago
          It's not just about size. Yes, if someone buys an apartment with three rooms and rents out two of them on a continual basis they should be treated as a hotel. But if they rent out a room on occasion then it's not the same situation.
• zerostar07 14y ago
  Yet the success of airbnb means that there is strong need to amend or extend these laws. After all, it's a different kind of lodging in which the consumer accepts nonstandard services for a smaller fee. At this point, the airbnb model has gained enough momentum to be unstoppable by local lobbies. Currently, especially in europe, airbnb seems to be borderline legal for people who don't own licences. Inevitably airbnb will have to find common ground with local authorities, instead of relegating the issue to individual users. After all it's in their interest.
  • wwkeyboard 14y ago
    How much of that success comes from the existing industries inefficiencies and how much from skirting legitimate costs like insurance, hygiene, inspections, and local government's travel bureau taxes?
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
• akalsey 14y ago
  The only protection a hotel operator gets here is protection of their business model. Governments should not generally be in the business of favoring one business model over another, or of passing laws that protect models from the march of time. See also: Uber, copyright extension act.
• argumentum 14y ago
  > 1. To protect hotel owners and operators. Who gives them the right to protection?
  • potatolicious 14y ago
    Who gives you the right to protection? Hotel owners, operators, and employees are all represented, tax-paying members of our society. What exactly makes them unworthy of protection moreso than yourself?
    • 001sky 14y ago
      they are professional real-estate investors. your analogy is like saying invetment bankers and vc's need protection from their clients or entreprenuers. while they do need (and are entitled to) equal protection to support bilateral contract, its not clear they need protection laws in the sense of "consumer protection"==which is protection given in the public interest to allow 'naive' parties to trust 'sophisticated' professionals.
      • tptacek 14y ago
        That's an embarrassingly reductionist viewpoint; it's hard to think of a profession that can't be considered a professional investor of some form or another. What's embarrassing about it is that you obviously don't grok the difference between investors and speculators. An investor is someone who spends time and money on something in the hopes that its growth or development or even upkeep will eventually provide a return. This is almost always a good thing. A speculator --- like an investment banker or VC --- leverages capital to place bets, and any good that comes from those bets is an unintended consequence. You will have a very hard time reasoning about most of western civilization if you start from a point that equates all investment with speculation.
        • 001sky 14y ago
          I think you are clearly mis-reading what I am saying. Laws apply (thanks to the constitution) to all people individually, equally. That being said, there are levels of abstractions about why laws exists (ie, public policy rationales). Most rules are not written to tilt outcomes toward the more sophisticated, specialized market participants (although undoubtidly some are in practice if not theory). On the contrary: If information assymetry exists, they exist more often to obviate it (ie, the general securities laws). None of this has to do with what you seem fixated on (grok the difference between investors and speculators).