5 ms·

You are saying: (a) This could never happen a hotel room. (b) Since Airbnb is illegal in NYC, it's not Airbnb's fault someone is trusting them and their vetti

by oskarth 13y ago

You are saying: (a) This could never happen a hotel room. (b) Since Airbnb is illegal in NYC, it's not Airbnb's fault someone is trusting them and their vetting system in NYC.* Both seems false to me. * Obviously it's not their "fault", but they should take responsibility, just like an insurance company / hotel chain would. ADDITION: What's the purpose of Airbnb's vetting/trust system? Is it not the same as the purpose of hotel regulation? Should they not both serve a similar function?

rayiner 13y ago
The purpose of hotel regulations isn't to keep these things from happening. It's to keep these things confined to places equipped to deal with them, and zoned to keep it all away from residential places.
- vacri 13y ago
  Not to mention that when this does happen in a hotel, no-one ends up evicted over it.
  - alttab 13y ago
    Everyone just high fives instead.
gkoberger 13y ago
No, it totally could happen in a hotel room. And I bet it does, constantly. But hotels are equipped for it, so there's fewer issues (no personal property damaged, better fire codes, credit card on file, not happening in a residential area, etc). And I didn't say (b). Rather, I said AirBnb didn't force them to let strangers into their home; it was their decision. AirBnb approved the people, sure -- but so did the apartment owner. EDIT: In response to your addition -- AirBnb doesn't verify they won't do something bad (they can't see the future). Rather, it means that AirBnb has verified they are who they said they are. So, AirBnb can now go to the police with that information.
- smsm42 13y ago
  AirBnB requires credit card on file, doesn't it? And property gets damaged in hotels the same way, the only difference whose property it is - hotel owner's or appartment owner's. As for fire code, I don't see how it is even relevant.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    FD sets max occupancy for confined spaces. This includes public access areas (eg, elevators).
    - smsm42 13y ago
      So? It doesn't prevent people from ignoring those rules, and there's no fire inspector going through all rooms to check if there's no code violation. Again, the prevention here is impossible. Fining people that did it after the fact - easily, but that's not the problem here. If having "max occupancy set" were a problem, AirBnB would just said on the site "no more than 3 people and no wild sex parties" and problem solved, right?
      - 001sky 13y ago
        It is legally relevant, whether you like it or not. There's a lot of bluster in the rest of your response. I sure as hell don't support the hotel lobby and I'm not a fan of "hotel taxes" either. But that's special interest politics and its quite removed from the broad structuring of risk that legitimate regulation facilitates. Fire-codes, health-codes, and fundamental liability for willful corporate malfeasance/negligence are not so easily dismissed.
        smileysteve 13y ago
        in college, I once stated in a 2 bed hotel room with 16 people. hotel regulations do not prevent this any more than airbnb stated limits
bdcravens 13y ago
This could never happen a hotel room. Hotels are staffed and better prepared to deal with such situations. Also if a hotel room gets trashed, that's just a business expense. Most people don't have their bed bolted to the wall, and tend to have nicer furnishings and appliances, etc, than you'll find in a hotel. Ignore the value even: we're talking someone's property, someone's life. If a room, a floor, or even the entire hotel gets shut down due to destruction, it's inconvenient and an expense. If I get evicted, that's a crisis, at least for a time. The "OMG! DISRUPTING!" crowd seem to hand-wave these situations away, as if destroying "evil" business models is far more important than the impact it has on individuals. If someone's life is ruined 1 out 1000 AirBnB rentals, that's too often.
- chii 13y ago
  > Most people don't have their bed bolted to the wall, and tend to have nicer furnishings and appliances, etc, than you'll find in a hotel shouldn't you as an apartment owner think about that before signing up to airBnB?
  - deong 13y ago
    If AirBnB would like to formally institute a policy of "haha, WTF were you thinking letting us send people from the internet to stay in your house?", then they should be wholly unsurprised when numerous government bodies shut down their business completely. Soon.
  - cmsmith 13y ago
    AirBNB's entire business model is based on people NOT thinking that.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Overwhelming majority of rental cases on AirBnB are ending very well. I just recently used AirBnB to stay a week in a 1br apartment owned by a nice family in a great location for 1/3 of the price I'd pay for more inferior hotel. I would never think of doing anything to harm my hosts. 99% people think the same. Of course, there's also 1% of the rest, but if you live your life worrying about the percentage of psychos in the population, you only will be hurting yourself.
bambax 13y ago
> What's the purpose of Airbnb's vetting/trust system? Is it not the same as the purpose of hotel regulation? No they're not. Hotel regulations are actual regulations, enforced by the state. Airbnb's "vetting" system is just a marketing device, enforced by no one, and that you trust at your own expense, as these stories show.
- judk 13y ago
  You oversell the government. Government regulations is ultimately just a promise backed by reputation. Some agencies follow through, some don't.
  - alttab 13y ago
    A reputation whose life is significantly longer and larger than air bnb.
  - mbillie1 13y ago
    Yeah but you can legally appeal to government regulations. What recourse do you have with Airbnb? Writing a blog post?
    - smsm42 13y ago
      You can sue AirBnB. You'd say it is expensive, but "legally appeal" is always a pretty expensive thing to do. And, as far as I know, the regulatory agencies do not have actual legal obligation to consistently enforce their regulations - they have a very wide discretion, so if they want to ignore you, you don't have a lot of recourse. In fact, lately we have a lot of instances of executive powers modifying and plainly abandoning enforcing the laws they don't like. You don't have a lot of options in such case.

by oskarth 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

The purpose of hotel regulations isn't to keep these things from happening. It's to keep these things confined to places equipped to deal with them, and zoned to keep it all away from residential places.

vacri 13y ago
Not to mention that when this does happen in a hotel, no-one ends up evicted over it.
- alttab 13y ago
  Everyone just high fives instead.

gkoberger 13y ago

No, it totally could happen in a hotel room. And I bet it does, constantly. But hotels are equipped for it, so there's fewer issues (no personal property damaged, better fire codes, credit card on file, not happening in a residential area, etc). And I didn't say (b). Rather, I said AirBnb didn't force them to let strangers into their home; it was their decision. AirBnb approved the people, sure -- but so did the apartment owner. EDIT: In response to your addition -- AirBnb doesn't verify they won't do something bad (they can't see the future). Rather, it means that AirBnb has verified they are who they said they are. So, AirBnb can now go to the police with that information.

smsm42 13y ago
AirBnB requires credit card on file, doesn't it? And property gets damaged in hotels the same way, the only difference whose property it is - hotel owner's or appartment owner's. As for fire code, I don't see how it is even relevant.
- 001sky 13y ago
  FD sets max occupancy for confined spaces. This includes public access areas (eg, elevators).
  - smsm42 13y ago
    So? It doesn't prevent people from ignoring those rules, and there's no fire inspector going through all rooms to check if there's no code violation. Again, the prevention here is impossible. Fining people that did it after the fact - easily, but that's not the problem here. If having "max occupancy set" were a problem, AirBnB would just said on the site "no more than 3 people and no wild sex parties" and problem solved, right?
    - 001sky 13y ago
      It is legally relevant, whether you like it or not. There's a lot of bluster in the rest of your response. I sure as hell don't support the hotel lobby and I'm not a fan of "hotel taxes" either. But that's special interest politics and its quite removed from the broad structuring of risk that legitimate regulation facilitates. Fire-codes, health-codes, and fundamental liability for willful corporate malfeasance/negligence are not so easily dismissed.
      - smileysteve 13y ago
        in college, I once stated in a 2 bed hotel room with 16 people. hotel regulations do not prevent this any more than airbnb stated limits

bdcravens 13y ago

This could never happen a hotel room. Hotels are staffed and better prepared to deal with such situations. Also if a hotel room gets trashed, that's just a business expense. Most people don't have their bed bolted to the wall, and tend to have nicer furnishings and appliances, etc, than you'll find in a hotel. Ignore the value even: we're talking someone's property, someone's life. If a room, a floor, or even the entire hotel gets shut down due to destruction, it's inconvenient and an expense. If I get evicted, that's a crisis, at least for a time. The "OMG! DISRUPTING!" crowd seem to hand-wave these situations away, as if destroying "evil" business models is far more important than the impact it has on individuals. If someone's life is ruined 1 out 1000 AirBnB rentals, that's too often.

chii 13y ago
> Most people don't have their bed bolted to the wall, and tend to have nicer furnishings and appliances, etc, than you'll find in a hotel shouldn't you as an apartment owner think about that before signing up to airBnB?
- deong 13y ago
  If AirBnB would like to formally institute a policy of "haha, WTF were you thinking letting us send people from the internet to stay in your house?", then they should be wholly unsurprised when numerous government bodies shut down their business completely. Soon.
- cmsmith 13y ago
  AirBNB's entire business model is based on people NOT thinking that.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Overwhelming majority of rental cases on AirBnB are ending very well. I just recently used AirBnB to stay a week in a 1br apartment owned by a nice family in a great location for 1/3 of the price I'd pay for more inferior hotel. I would never think of doing anything to harm my hosts. 99% people think the same. Of course, there's also 1% of the rest, but if you live your life worrying about the percentage of psychos in the population, you only will be hurting yourself.

bambax 13y ago

> What's the purpose of Airbnb's vetting/trust system? Is it not the same as the purpose of hotel regulation? No they're not. Hotel regulations are actual regulations, enforced by the state. Airbnb's "vetting" system is just a marketing device, enforced by no one, and that you trust at your own expense, as these stories show.

judk 13y ago
You oversell the government. Government regulations is ultimately just a promise backed by reputation. Some agencies follow through, some don't.
- alttab 13y ago
  A reputation whose life is significantly longer and larger than air bnb.
- mbillie1 13y ago
  Yeah but you can legally appeal to government regulations. What recourse do you have with Airbnb? Writing a blog post?
  - smsm42 13y ago
    You can sue AirBnB. You'd say it is expensive, but "legally appeal" is always a pretty expensive thing to do. And, as far as I know, the regulatory agencies do not have actual legal obligation to consistently enforce their regulations - they have a very wide discretion, so if they want to ignore you, you don't have a lot of recourse. In fact, lately we have a lot of instances of executive powers modifying and plainly abandoning enforcing the laws they don't like. You don't have a lot of options in such case.