5 ms·

>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 lat

>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.
      - Goronmon 13y ago
        Tell me more about how the concerns of the majority overrule the rights of the minority. I'm not sure the snark is necessary or even make sense. The 'minority' shouldn't expect a right to illegally rent out their living spaces. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
        dantheman 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.

>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.
    - Goronmon 13y ago
      Tell me more about how the concerns of the majority overrule the rights of the minority. I'm not sure the snark is necessary or even make sense. The 'minority' shouldn't expect a right to illegally rent out their living spaces. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
      - dantheman 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.