5 ms·

Or blatant tax avoidance and disregard for building code and hotel regulations is a matter of importance for the state of New York. It may seem all outdated to

Or blatant tax avoidance and disregard for building code and hotel regulations is a matter of importance for the state of New York. It may seem all outdated to us global internet citizens, but a lot of those old-fashioned real-world rules evolved because there was a problem. That's not to say that all rules in their current incarnation are sensible and well applicable to the current state of affairs, but participation in the law system is not voluntary - you don't get to opt out just because you think it's unjust.

27182818284 13y ago
>That's not to say that all rules in their current incarnation are sensible We should be having that debate rather than shooting first and asking questions later.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Well, sure. But it's not like that AirBnB was coming forward and discussing health and fire code implications or taxing problems with the service they created with the local authorities. AirBnB basically pushes that burden down to the host - most of whom will not read or obey the advice hidden in the FAQ. Also, I sincerely doubt that the IRS will be very forthcoming to discuss whether the current taxation rules are sensible or not with someone who's charged with avoiding taxes. I understand that solving the problem is partially out of scope for AirBnB but so far they've been taking the easy route by ignoring and denying the problem. Reminds me of the mess über had at its hand when complaining about the taxi regulations in stockholm.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  But that's not the place of the legislature (or a judge), not the AG. I realize that in practice this happens, but we set a dangerous precedent when we allow the Attorney General to decide what should and should not be prosecuted. In theory, the Attorney General prosecutes all perceived violations of the law[0], and it's up to the justice system to, well, decide of the law is just. [0] And I don't think anybody's debating that this violates the law; the debate is whether or not the law is just.
  - repsilat 13y ago
    > In theory, the Attorney General prosecutes all perceived violations of the law[0] What? No. The AG is a political office. Prosecutorial discretion is used all the time because there are lots of anachronistic and over-broad laws on the books, and because there are lots of lawbreakers that are not politically expedient to prosecute.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Exercising prosecutorial discretion is appropriate when you're talking about enforcing laws against having sex with the lights on or some such thing. Not when you're talking about enforcing laws that probably only a vocal minority actually oppose. There's a small group of property owners who want to rent out their places on AirBnB, and a much bigger group worried about what the constant stream of short-term renters will do to their neighborhoods. This investigation is clearly political, but not in the shadowy anti-competitive way implied above. Property owners are the most important constituency for state and local governments. To a great extent, those governments exist to protect the interests of property owners. An AG pursuing a pro-owner position is hardly to be considered the result of political corruption.
      - 3825 13y ago
        >a much bigger group worried about what the constant stream of short-term renters will do to their neighborhoods. Tell me more about how the concerns of the majority overrule the rights of the minority.
        Xylakant 13y ago
        You're misleading: No right of the minority is overruled in this case. If it's legal to rent out your apartment, you're not violating tax code, zoning regulations or any other laws you're free to rent out your apartment on AirBnB. However, just being a minority doesn't make you exempt from laws. The fact that the AG is investigating doesn't imply a conviction.
        13y ago
- sequoia 13y ago
  Which side are you referring to? Is the AG shooting first by subpoenaing rather than having a discussion, or AirBnB shooting first by building a business that's probably at variance with tax law rather than working to reform the law first?
- wmeredith 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure debates over justice occur in the judiciary, hence the subpoena, no?
- baddox 13y ago
  And in this case, no rule is sensible if its consequence is that you can't rent out your apartment on Airbnb.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    Please elaborate - why would that be?
- jarrett 13y ago
  The laws were (presumably) debated before they were passed. So it's not premature to enforce those laws today. It's not shooting first and asking questions later. It's more like asking questions, having a vote on whether we can shoot, and then shooting. We may not like the exact formulation of those laws. We may consider them overly broad or intrusive. We may feel they should have distinguished between abusive profiteers and average, well-intentioned citizens who only rarely rent out their apartments. These are reasonable positions, and I can see their merit. We probably should have that debate. And amendments to the existing laws probably should be given a fair shot in the legislature. But until then, it's entirely appropriate to enforce the laws that were duly passed many years ago. One could argue that the government should exercise some discretion, and enforce the laws only against those operators who are actually causing a problem. Well, according to the unnamed source in the government, that's exactly what they're doing. You may choose to believe that source or not. But until we hear about the government coming down hard on a legit, small-time user, I'm prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one.
ryguytilidie 13y ago
I think the point is that you shouldn't be vastly more likely to enforce laws that would harm the competitors of your biggest campaign donors but I guess making up the persons argument and then tearing that down is more satisfying?
- Xylakant 13y ago
  I'm not making up this persons argument. I'm just offering an alternative explanations. Granted, I rant a little about how us net-citizens often regard obeying rules as optional rather than obligatory, but that's more because that's the common counter-argument to "hey, they're prosecuted because they broke laws.". I strongly doubt that the parents theory applies for a couple of reasons: * The donation is the 4th largest, but still only 1.58%. That's a bit - but there are more donations in the same ballpark. The largest donation is just shy of tenfold that amount. We're talking 40k USD here. It might move the AG a little in the desired direction, but I doubt "vastly more likely" applies here. * The company donating isn't even in the same market. AirBnB and Glenwood Real Estate Corp. are not competitors. * AirBnB is having the same troubles in other cities. NY is just further ahead in the hardball game. * This has been unfolding for quite a while. I'm rather surprised it took so long. All in all, I think your and the OPs conspiracy theory doesn't apply here. I think it's just a standard case of a startup trying to revolutionize a market that they've deemed "ripe for disruption" and on the way bulldozering their way over laws and regulations. And now they've just hit a wall that won't budge so easily. The sad part of the affair is that most of the fallout will hit the AirBnB hosts who are legally on the hook, but that's something both sides, AirBnB and the AG have willingly taken into account.
  - paddy_m 13y ago
    It's depressing how little money it takes to buy a politician. I would completely believe $40k. The AG isn't doing anything illegal, he has prosecutorial discretion. As we have more and more laws, more and more power is vested in him.
    - Shivetya 13y ago
wahsd 13y ago
I get that, but if you really think this has ANYTHING to do with enforcement of safety and health standards then you are living in a dream. If that was their primary concern then the nasty cesspool "hotels" would not exist. Even big, corporate chain hotels are usually nasty and disgusting. This is ALL about collecting taxes and ensuring private profits in clear and simple form of corruption out of incompetence and fear of actually having to compete. Maybe prices need to come down or service needs to improve so I may want to stay at a hotel that can provide what an AirBnB can't? Imagine that. American companies actually having to compete instead of rigging systems that ensure "success".
- Xylakant 13y ago
  I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I can try: * I think prosecuting tax evasion is one reason. It's hotel tax actually and not income tax, but tax evasion is tax evasion. However, I don't see why AirBnB host should play by different rules than a b&b-style guest house. * Same applies for zoning restrictions. We can debate if the current restrictions are sensible or not, but that's the playground and the rules and we all play by the same rules. * Hotels are cesspools. Yes, some are. Even chain hotels are. I don't know about NY hotels but I've seen quite a few and they range from "great in all regards" to "glad I'm far away". All in all most hove been acceptable. B&B rentals are on the same scale. At least with hotels there's a place I can report violations to. I fail to see any reason or moral right that AirBnB host should not have to register as a B&B place, not pay the applicable fees and not adhere to the applicable rules. They're totally free to do that and then advertise on AirBnB. However, the implied reason a lot of hosts don't do that is because their landlord won't allow them to sublet the apartment - but that's a totally different problem. I fail to see any moral right that your landlord has to allow sublets. It's also none of the states business. There's a lot wrong with governments and corruption and often they're incompetent and played by interested parties, but I think it's wrong to always assume that as the primary cause for government action.
  - autodidakto 13y ago
    You're right: All these restrictions and taxes should be abolished for both AirBnB and Hotels. Problem solved.

27182818284 13y ago

>That's not to say that all rules in their current incarnation are sensible We should be having that debate rather than shooting first and asking questions later.

Xylakant 13y ago
Well, sure. But it's not like that AirBnB was coming forward and discussing health and fire code implications or taxing problems with the service they created with the local authorities. AirBnB basically pushes that burden down to the host - most of whom will not read or obey the advice hidden in the FAQ. Also, I sincerely doubt that the IRS will be very forthcoming to discuss whether the current taxation rules are sensible or not with someone who's charged with avoiding taxes. I understand that solving the problem is partially out of scope for AirBnB but so far they've been taking the easy route by ignoring and denying the problem. Reminds me of the mess über had at its hand when complaining about the taxi regulations in stockholm.
chimeracoder 13y ago
But that's not the place of the legislature (or a judge), not the AG. I realize that in practice this happens, but we set a dangerous precedent when we allow the Attorney General to decide what should and should not be prosecuted. In theory, the Attorney General prosecutes all perceived violations of the law[0], and it's up to the justice system to, well, decide of the law is just. [0] And I don't think anybody's debating that this violates the law; the debate is whether or not the law is just.
- repsilat 13y ago
  > In theory, the Attorney General prosecutes all perceived violations of the law[0] What? No. The AG is a political office. Prosecutorial discretion is used all the time because there are lots of anachronistic and over-broad laws on the books, and because there are lots of lawbreakers that are not politically expedient to prosecute.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Exercising prosecutorial discretion is appropriate when you're talking about enforcing laws against having sex with the lights on or some such thing. Not when you're talking about enforcing laws that probably only a vocal minority actually oppose. There's a small group of property owners who want to rent out their places on AirBnB, and a much bigger group worried about what the constant stream of short-term renters will do to their neighborhoods. This investigation is clearly political, but not in the shadowy anti-competitive way implied above. Property owners are the most important constituency for state and local governments. To a great extent, those governments exist to protect the interests of property owners. An AG pursuing a pro-owner position is hardly to be considered the result of political corruption.
    - 3825 13y ago
      >a much bigger group worried about what the constant stream of short-term renters will do to their neighborhoods. Tell me more about how the concerns of the majority overrule the rights of the minority.
      - Xylakant 13y ago
        You're misleading: No right of the minority is overruled in this case. If it's legal to rent out your apartment, you're not violating tax code, zoning regulations or any other laws you're free to rent out your apartment on AirBnB. However, just being a minority doesn't make you exempt from laws. The fact that the AG is investigating doesn't imply a conviction.
      - 13y ago
sequoia 13y ago
Which side are you referring to? Is the AG shooting first by subpoenaing rather than having a discussion, or AirBnB shooting first by building a business that's probably at variance with tax law rather than working to reform the law first?
wmeredith 13y ago
I'm pretty sure debates over justice occur in the judiciary, hence the subpoena, no?
baddox 13y ago
And in this case, no rule is sensible if its consequence is that you can't rent out your apartment on Airbnb.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Please elaborate - why would that be?
jarrett 13y ago
The laws were (presumably) debated before they were passed. So it's not premature to enforce those laws today. It's not shooting first and asking questions later. It's more like asking questions, having a vote on whether we can shoot, and then shooting. We may not like the exact formulation of those laws. We may consider them overly broad or intrusive. We may feel they should have distinguished between abusive profiteers and average, well-intentioned citizens who only rarely rent out their apartments. These are reasonable positions, and I can see their merit. We probably should have that debate. And amendments to the existing laws probably should be given a fair shot in the legislature. But until then, it's entirely appropriate to enforce the laws that were duly passed many years ago. One could argue that the government should exercise some discretion, and enforce the laws only against those operators who are actually causing a problem. Well, according to the unnamed source in the government, that's exactly what they're doing. You may choose to believe that source or not. But until we hear about the government coming down hard on a legit, small-time user, I'm prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one.

ryguytilidie 13y ago

I think the point is that you shouldn't be vastly more likely to enforce laws that would harm the competitors of your biggest campaign donors but I guess making up the persons argument and then tearing that down is more satisfying?

Xylakant 13y ago
I'm not making up this persons argument. I'm just offering an alternative explanations. Granted, I rant a little about how us net-citizens often regard obeying rules as optional rather than obligatory, but that's more because that's the common counter-argument to "hey, they're prosecuted because they broke laws.". I strongly doubt that the parents theory applies for a couple of reasons: * The donation is the 4th largest, but still only 1.58%. That's a bit - but there are more donations in the same ballpark. The largest donation is just shy of tenfold that amount. We're talking 40k USD here. It might move the AG a little in the desired direction, but I doubt "vastly more likely" applies here. * The company donating isn't even in the same market. AirBnB and Glenwood Real Estate Corp. are not competitors. * AirBnB is having the same troubles in other cities. NY is just further ahead in the hardball game. * This has been unfolding for quite a while. I'm rather surprised it took so long. All in all, I think your and the OPs conspiracy theory doesn't apply here. I think it's just a standard case of a startup trying to revolutionize a market that they've deemed "ripe for disruption" and on the way bulldozering their way over laws and regulations. And now they've just hit a wall that won't budge so easily. The sad part of the affair is that most of the fallout will hit the AirBnB hosts who are legally on the hook, but that's something both sides, AirBnB and the AG have willingly taken into account.
- paddy_m 13y ago
  It's depressing how little money it takes to buy a politician. I would completely believe $40k. The AG isn't doing anything illegal, he has prosecutorial discretion. As we have more and more laws, more and more power is vested in him.
  - Shivetya 13y ago

wahsd 13y ago

I get that, but if you really think this has ANYTHING to do with enforcement of safety and health standards then you are living in a dream. If that was their primary concern then the nasty cesspool "hotels" would not exist. Even big, corporate chain hotels are usually nasty and disgusting. This is ALL about collecting taxes and ensuring private profits in clear and simple form of corruption out of incompetence and fear of actually having to compete. Maybe prices need to come down or service needs to improve so I may want to stay at a hotel that can provide what an AirBnB can't? Imagine that. American companies actually having to compete instead of rigging systems that ensure "success".

Xylakant 13y ago
I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I can try: * I think prosecuting tax evasion is one reason. It's hotel tax actually and not income tax, but tax evasion is tax evasion. However, I don't see why AirBnB host should play by different rules than a b&b-style guest house. * Same applies for zoning restrictions. We can debate if the current restrictions are sensible or not, but that's the playground and the rules and we all play by the same rules. * Hotels are cesspools. Yes, some are. Even chain hotels are. I don't know about NY hotels but I've seen quite a few and they range from "great in all regards" to "glad I'm far away". All in all most hove been acceptable. B&B rentals are on the same scale. At least with hotels there's a place I can report violations to. I fail to see any reason or moral right that AirBnB host should not have to register as a B&B place, not pay the applicable fees and not adhere to the applicable rules. They're totally free to do that and then advertise on AirBnB. However, the implied reason a lot of hosts don't do that is because their landlord won't allow them to sublet the apartment - but that's a totally different problem. I fail to see any moral right that your landlord has to allow sublets. It's also none of the states business. There's a lot wrong with governments and corruption and often they're incompetent and played by interested parties, but I think it's wrong to always assume that as the primary cause for government action.
- autodidakto 13y ago
  You're right: All these restrictions and taxes should be abolished for both AirBnB and Hotels. Problem solved.