33 ms·

S.F. cracks down on Airbnb rentals

• tomhschmidt 13y ago
  What's the rationale behind having laws like these in place? Is it protectionism for the hotel industry, or is it more intended to protect apartment renters from unintended liability issues?
  • protomyth 13y ago
    Its about liability and protection of the other people in the building. This type of law has a long history and a lot of things can go very wrong. This is a totally different story from Uber and the taxi industry.
    • pisarzp 13y ago
      Why liability would change? Main tenant is on the contract, and she should be liable for any issues arising due to airbnb rental.
      • protomyth 13y ago
        Its an unexpected risk as presumedly the landlord vetted[1] the tenant, but the Airbnb customer was not so vetted. 1) credit check & renter history are standard
      • camus2 13y ago
        what if something happens to the airbnb renter? liabilities are way more complicated than it seems.
    • hatu 13y ago
      I can understand not being pumped about having random people come and go if your neighbor is leasing out their place on a site like this regularly. As a traveler I like the service though.
    • tptacek 13y ago
      I'm not sure it's all that different from Uber and the taxi industry: * The medallion system gives owners something significant to lose it they become scofflaws, and while we all have horror stories about cab drivers, anyone who's traveled to Asia (or, for that matter, Italy) knows that we have relatively well-behaved drivers, even in the cohorts selected for worst incentives. * The taxi companies are required to comply with rules that make taxis part of the fabric of transportation for the whole city (for instance, they're usually required to serve every destination within the city). Uber does not need to comply with these rules, and thus threatens not just cab companies but the transportation system as a whole.
      • protomyth 13y ago
        I see your point and I guess I went a little far using "totally". In my mind, the governing factor in the taxi stories is a government created scarcity that results in some serious monopolies ($100,000 medallions). There is also a rather larger segment of private transportation other than cabs. The hotel / motel rules are less about scarcity than a history of really, really bad things happening. People's homes are a pretty big issue in when threatened by neighbors that can destroy everything you own. People get the possibility of a car accident even if it can be much, much worse.
      • sliverstorm 13y ago
        I'm reminded of that incident where the Uber driver hit & killed a kid, and the way Uber dropped the driver like a hot rock. After all, they've got nothing to lose!
    • malandrew 13y ago
      Why does it need to be a criminal issue though instead of merely a civil contract law issue? I would imagine that each landlord and each homeowner's association could come to their own agreements on what is and is not acceptable without the need for laws on the books.
      • protomyth 13y ago
        "Why does it need to be a criminal issue though instead of merely a civil contract law issue?" I get the feeling it is more the origin of the law as a business regulation that drives the criminal part. I too wish more things were handled as basic contract law issues.
  • mjgoins 13y ago
    One positive side effect of regulation is that overt racial discrimination is illegal. Black and Jewish folks used to have a hell of a time getting a hotel room in the US at various points in history. That became illegal with the 1960s civil rights laws, but recent media coverage suggests discrimination is rampant on Airbnb. It also used to be nearly impossible to find wheelchair-accessible hotels. I have no idea what the solution is here, but there are good things about regulation of these kinds of businesses.
  • uptown 13y ago
    I'm sure there are some protectionist elements to it, but it also prevents people from taking zoning-laws into their own hands. If an area is zoned as a residential zone, it shouldn't be turned into a commercial (i.e. hotel) zone because a bunch of people decide to turn their properties into nightly-rentals. If somebody decides their apartment would make a great night-club, they can't just make it a nightclub because they own their apartment. Zoning laws are designed to create a symbiotic relationship throughout a community, and AirBNB does very little to discourage its users from ignoring those laws.
  • pdq 13y ago
    It is protectionism for hotels. However, HOAs and City Councils will make the claims that this is to "protect" apartment owners from unknowing short-term sub-renting of their properties. We have the same problem here in Austin, except it is Taxis being protected against private drivers like Uber and Lyft. They claim this is to protect citizens from unlicensed drivers.
  • geebee 13y ago
    There is also concern about the large scale conversion of long term residential and single family housing stock into short-term vacation rentals in a severely supply constrained region.
• chollida1 13y ago
  The money quote from the article: > "They thought it was OK to rent out on Airbnb because the company didn't tell them otherwise. Airbnb should be defending these tenants, or they should disclose to every person who rents in San Francisco that (short-term rentals are illegal) and tenants are being evicted." This is interesting. If it is indeed illegal for any renter to use air bnb in San Francisco, then it seems logical to me that AirBnb should at the very least make the person renting out a place check a box that very clearly says 1) they own their own place 2) they have checked with their building, if its a condo or shared building, to ensure that its legal for them to rent out their place.
  • gpapilion 13y ago
    The tenant signed a lease, and should be aware of the clauses within it. Usually leases forbid subletting w/o the landlords approval.
    • toufka 13y ago
      At least in this case, it appears to be a law that is being violated, rather than a clause in a lease. The clause in the lease that is getting people evicted states, "any illegal activity". So just reading your lease is insufficient to determine whether or not one could rent a room. Further, from the article: "San Francisco bans all residential rentals of less than 30 days unless the hosts have a conditional use permit - an expensive and cumbersome process that virtually everyone ignores. The ban applies whether the hosts own or rent, paying guests visit frequently or once a year, or hosts rent out a room or an entire dwelling." So at least in SF - anyone using AirBNB at all is breaking the law, irrespective of one's lease or ownership status.
      • baddox 13y ago
        There still is (at least to me) a difference between specific illegal activity involving housing laws and simply any illegal activity in the apartment. Can you get evicted for, say, lying on your taxes from your apartment?
• jophde 13y ago
  San Franciscan crony capitalism at it's finest.
  • balls187 13y ago
    In Seattle, there was a HUGE stink after the City Council passed a law regulating services like Uber & Lyft. Given that we (Seattle) are always compared to the Bay Area in terms of innovation (and the stifling thereof), it's nice to see that at least our two city governments are aligned in their ineptitude.
    • steve-howard 13y ago
      "Regulating" in the same way that choking someone is "regulating" their air. Still, even though I really liked UberX's service, they deliberately set out to ignore the law and then cried foul when the city started putting some teeth to it.
• numlocked 13y ago
  Many of the comments on sfgate refer to the moral ambiguity of profiting off of a rent-controlled property -- definitely an interesting wrinkle.
  • optimusclimb 13y ago
    I don't see any ambiguity there. Airbnb is just one such abuse. In talking to people, I've heard countless examples of "master tenants" charging incoming roommates much higher rent than an "even split" on the rent. In one extreme, a tenant in a 3 bedroom was living 100% rent free while the other two tenants covered the entire costs - until they learned of this and moved out on principle. Tenants moving in as roommates on rent controlled apartments are apparently even offering cash bribes exceeding $1k for the privilege of obtaining a spot. Quite the broken system, imho.
    • tpurves 13y ago
      Rent control is a broken system. You have cases of someone with a long rent controlled $1500 rent on a 3bdr that would go for 3k or 4k market rates. If they listed a bedroom at $500 on CL they would get ten thousand of applicants.
      • malandrew 13y ago
        Furthermore, the quality of the applicants would be far lower than putting it on for market rate. Someone who can afford $1500 a month is more likely to be gainfully employed with greater job security. They are also likely to be able to contribute much more to a household. Even if someone were to rent out a room for $500, it behooves them to select from the applicant pool those who are capable of paying $1500 a month. Someone paying $500 and capable of $500 is less likely to want to contribute to common spaces and shared household necessities.
        • mrxd 13y ago
          So you're saying that the main disadvantage with rent control is that poor people can afford the rent?
• Estragon 13y ago
  Is there any risk of legal action from being an airbnb guest in SF?
  • ryanmcbride 13y ago
    Probably not since you aren't the one profiting, but if you know that it's illegal for the host, you probably shouldn't do it just to avoid being a jerk.
• stbtrax 13y ago
  As an SF renter, this makes me happy. I have met too many people personally that have an extra bed room(or even keep their lease and moved to a lower-rent city) that they rent out to subsidize their rent. This reduces stock for actual renters and drives prices up.
  • dguaraglia 13y ago
    On the other hand, that allows some people to live in the city when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it. The SF rental situation is not created by the few people that profit from temporarily renting to tourists.
  • jmzbond 13y ago
    I only partially agree with your comment. I wish there were a way to distinguish between people truly profiting off rent-controlled property (as @numlocked said) and sometimes not even living here, and those just trying to get a little extra cash to make ends meet. If you think about a year's worth of rental cost, no matter how much you rent out your apartment for in those short term bursts, you're probably never going to even get close to breaking even. And especially if you're one of those people not in a booming industry, it can really help when you're out of town for a weekend or so to try and defray the cost of living. Because while rent is controlled, nothing else in this city is.
    • optimusclimb 13y ago
      Not so sure about your second point - If a person has a place that has been rent controlled for 5+ years, this is quite doable. Additionally, how is renting out a "rent controlled" place at market rates not transferring income from the actual landlord, to the lessee, while defeating the "control" at the same time?
      • toufka 13y ago
        It's curious, because there's no reason to think the 'actual landlord' has a right to that additional income. They signed a lease at a given price for a given term. They could have signed that lease at dramatically higher terms. Just because the tenant made out good on the deal in the long term doesn't negate the initial contract. It's not like the landlord must be the only one that makes out best on any given contract...
• brianwawok 13y ago
  A startup built on an illegal business model in it's most popular markets... sounds like a 20 billion dollar exit.
  • paulbaumgart 13y ago
    Enabling a large number of people to more easily do slightly illegal things can be viewed as an opening offer in a negotiation. If the scale is large enough that enforcing existing laws is unrealistic, what often happens is that lawmakers and offenders eventually meet somewhere in the middle.
    • GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
      Why would it be too large to enforce? The drug war certainly isn't.
      • smsm42 13y ago
        The drug war is also a spectacular failure and has been a main source of civil rights abuses until 9/11 response overtook it in that capacity (not that it doesn't continue to provide a healthy competition still). But yes, expecting that government wakes up to reason anytime soon may be overly optimistic.
    • TillE 13y ago
      Unlikely in this case. Berlin for example is going in very much the opposite direction, passing new laws to crack down on short-term rentals, freeing up more properties in the city centre for actual residents.
  • baddox 13y ago
    Sounds like a decent way to eventually get ridiculous laws changed.
• mahyarm 13y ago
  I wonder what the rights of a short term renter is in SF. Lets say 30 days or some other small fixed time that is legal. Can you practically stop paying rent and live there for the years it takes to get you evicted? Would they have to pay you the $~40k relocation payments to get you out eventually?
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I wonder what the rights of a short term renter is in SF. Lets say 30 days or some other small fixed time that is legal. Except for properly licensed hotels, short-term rentals are illegal in SF.
    • mahyarm 13y ago
      The article says over 30 day rentals are legal. It's under 30 day rentals without a permit that are illegal. But I'm wondering if there is a difference in treatment vs a person who has been there for a year or more.
      • greggarious 13y ago
        I am also interested in this. It could end up being a nightmare scenario. Someoen signs up for a month, says "You know what, I like it here. I'm not leaving." Even if they kept paying rent, they might be an unpleasant person. If they also stop paying rent it could be even worse.
• noobiemcfoob 13y ago
  While breaking the law is generally a bad idea and generally one should be punished for it, I was disappointed that both the article and comments on the article didn't delve into whether it is a 'good and fair' law in the first place. I understand the ambiguity of a tenant virtually subleasing a property, which is a clause normally either allowed or not allowed in a tenant's lease, but the blanket ban of renting a room for a short number of days seems like a law that hotel lobbyists worked hard to get in place.
  • rayiner 13y ago
    That's a kind of ad-hominem attack on a law. Just because the hotel lobbyists might favor it doesn't mean it's not a good or fair law. The fact of the matter is that these sorts of provisions are supported not just by hotel lobbyists,[1] but property owners generally. Short-term renters reduce property value in neighborhoods, and property owners love measures to ban such rentals. [1] Invoking the specter of "hotel lobbyists" is intensely amusing to me. If hotels had such good lobbyists, cities wouldn't have almost universally exorbitant (over 14% in NYC) hospitality taxes, which quite negatively affect the hotel industry.
    • sillysaurus3 13y ago
      What's an example of any law that's currently in place which you feel is unjust or unfair?
      • noobiemcfoob 13y ago
        I'm uncertain if you are addressing me or rayiner, but marriage equality (or more so bans against) is an easy one without even straining. Do you mean to imply that laws are inherently just and fair?
        • sillysaurus3 13y ago
          I was just looking for rayiner's take on what makes an unfair law unfair.
• crassus 13y ago
  This is rich coming from a city with more dingy rent-by-hour flophouses than any other I've ever seen
• sentientmachine 13y ago
  Some people own their own home and still can't use Airbnb because their HOA (Home Owner Association) made a rule that you can't sublet your house. And if you are found in abayence of this rule, they can fine you any amount they want per day, and then if you still don't comply, they can sell your house and kick you out of it. So people who have houses with an HOA, they don't technically own their house, they are just borrowing it from the HOA while paying the taxes, insurance, and doing all the work for them to keep the house up.
  • aidenn0 13y ago
    IANAL, but my understanding is that HOAs in California can't put a lien on your property for failing to pay fines, only for failing to pay dues. Furthermore overly punitive fines aren't allowed, and that rule does in fact have teeth (and is also abused by homeowners to make it more expensive to collect fines from them). That means if you pay your dues, but not your fine, the only option the HOA has to collect is to sue you. Once you pass the maximum for small-claims, that starts to get really expensive. Lastly, each homeowner has a common-interest in the HOA, including an equal vote in board-members. For large HOAs, that becomes fairly moot, but for smaller ones, it makes a difference. Now HOAs aren't all sunshine and roses (I prefer to not live in one, primarily since common-interest property tends to be run quite inefficiently), but it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
    • mikeho1999 13y ago
      Yes, you are correct, on pretty much all of your points. > IANAL, but my understanding is that HOAs in California can't put a lien on your property for failing to pay fines, only for failing to pay dues. Yes, however, most HOAs do have ways to make it difficult for homeowners who have become delinquent on fines. One common approach is that the CC&Rs allow a delinquent homeowner to be placed as "a member NOT in good standing", which means that the owner will be precluded from using the association amenities (pool, clubhouse, tennis court, etc.) or even being able to vote for board members, until the fine is paid off and the "good standing" is restored. > Furthermore overly punitive fines aren't allowed, and that rule does in fact have teeth (and is also abused by homeowners to make it more expensive to collect fines from them). Not only that, but the Davis-Sterling Act (which is the California state laws that govern common interest developments) as well as most of the local courts in California are very much sided towards the homeowner and against the overall community. Much of the Davis-Sterling Act was written and approved at a time when there was a lot of concern that large community developments would do things to abuse and harm the individual homeowner, or more specifically, that the will of the majority (within a CID) would do things to make life as difficult as possible for those in the minority. Davis-Sterling (and the many of subsequent court cases that dealt with Davis-Sterling) was basically set up to help prevent that as much as possible, unfortunately sometimes to the detriment of well-meaning HOA Boards that are dealing with a delinquent homeowner that understands these loopholes and uses them to willingly violate rules, or skirt out of paying fines, etc.
• willemm 13y ago
  I'd be interested to find out where this push of evictions is coming from. They mentioned a surge of complaints from neighbors of renters, but I think it's more likely to be the hotel industry pushing back, or perhaps the city making a point about evading hotel taxes.
  • pisarzp 13y ago
    Or just landlord who is looking for a reason to evict someone and get market rate for the flat.
    • cdelsolar 13y ago
      Bingo.
• jrockway 13y ago
  I read to about here: "Using an apartment for short-term rentals is a crime in San Francisco," said Edward Singer, an attorney with Zacks & Freedman who filed the notice against Katz. Considering private attorneys don't prosecute crimes, this sounds like a landlord that wanted to raise the rent and found a good excuse to evict the current tenant.
• protomyth 13y ago
  So, in this climate of protests and such, I wonder which news outlet will go with the "just trying to make ends meet due to the high cost of housing due to all the techies, a couple used Airbnb (one of those techie startups) and got evicted. now their apartment has been rented by a tech startup employee and they are homeless" angle. It seems like the perfect storm type story.
  • eqdw 13y ago
    These kinds of airbnb-based eviction articles make me laugh. The overwhelming media narrative here is "all evictions are bad, look at this rich uncaring landlord forcing this poor hardworking american into homelessness". But the other narrative is "tech companies are evil". So what happens when an evil tech company (or, by extension, someone using one like AirBnB) gets evicted? Are we supposed to hate the landlord for evicting, or love the landlord for fighting the man. The articles I read on these subjects always feel schizophrenic
• gtirloni 13y ago
  Airbnb doesn't have to know about laws in every places, but if it knows about such laws (and that they're being actively enforced) in SF and NYC, why allow people to announce or rent places there in the first place? There are plenty of services (online streaming) that will tell you "sorry, our service is not available in your country/city/etc". The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics. It's all good they want to change the law but while they haven't had success in the area, is it worth the bad press and headaches for renters?
  • sliverstorm 13y ago
    why allow people to announce or rent places there in the first place? Because they get a cut?
    • gtirloni 13y ago
      That's true. So perhaps that cut is high enough to make the rest worth it. I'm taking Airbnb out of my hip&cool list of companies :)
  • eqdw 13y ago
    > The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics. Don't ascribe ethics to a company. Companies are not people. Companies don't care about ethics. They care about legal responsibility.
    • gtirloni 13y ago
      Companies are made of people. (Some) people care about ethics. (Somes) companies care about ethics. For a company that is based on trust (https://www.airbnb.com/trust https://www.airbnb.com/trust) I expect more from them than the lowly behavior we're used to see from other well known corporations that don't care.
  • winstonx 13y ago
    > The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics. Laws and ethics are not the same thing. In fact, it is often ethical to break a law.
• rch 13y ago
  One problem in Boulder is that various entities (people, speculators, etc.) can be more aggressive about investing in affordable property, especially condos and smaller houses. Which they then operate as distributed, high-margin hotels. I don't think this is what Airbnb had in mind anyway, and it's obviously going to cause friction as the range in property costs collapses up into the high end (which is holding relatively constant). Boulder is a tough market by design, but anything with this sort of impact is going to be closely scrutinized and evaluated for long term effects on the community.
• mailplane212 13y ago
  I just came back from SF having used Airbnb (studio apartment under the house) for the duration of my stay. I looked at hotels and hostels, however the night rate of a hotel was simply too expensive and I hate staying in hostels. Airbnb was a cheaper alternative that meant I could actually afford to stay in SF, while there I used the trams, bought coffees in local coffee shops (not Starbucks), ate in restaurants and visited the Exploratorium, all of which I assume SF gets a slice of through taxes. My hosts own their property and as a result I think they should be able to rent it out on a short term basis if they want to, they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though. I think the law should be looked at if for those who own their property. Villas in Europe are rented out legally all the time and it drives lots of tourism and provides accommodation at much better rates than hotels etc. If the host rents, then their land lord should be able to evict them if they sublet and they're not allowed to - they agreed to the contract and they should stick to it.
  • driverdan 13y ago
    > they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though SF and CA already charge plenty of taxes. There's no need for any extra.
  • kansface 13y ago
    Airbnb residents are often a nightmare for other tenants in the same building- they often function as de facto customer support and are forced to put up with the extra noise. Beyond the legality, this business model is plagued by extremes.
    • malandrew 13y ago
      What's your basis for claiming this is an often occurrence? I have no doubt that there are nightmare airbnb hosts, but often is hardly warranted. I've lived as a roommate in a unit where the master tenant rents out on airbnb and in the dozens of interactions, I can think of at most one case where the person what an inconvenience to me and I can think of no cases where the person was an inconvenience to our neighbors.
  • 13y ago
• Jd 13y ago
  The first time I used AirBnB in SF, the renter invited me to use all the facilities of his apartment complex, including as much free coffee as I wanted, the gym, swimming pool, etc. This struck me as not particularly sustainable. It also struck me as morally questionable. It was only a matter of time before the chickens eventually came home to roost...
  • malandrew 13y ago
    If that tenant had had a roommate, would that roommate not be consuming the same facilities? If so, would that be morally questionable? At the end of the day, that tenant is probably paying homeowner's due proportional to the square footage of their unit. e.g. someone with 2 rooms is likely paying twice as much in dues as someone with 1 room. I know that when I rented the penthouse unit in an apartment building with my father, we were paying almost 2x as much in building dues as the other units in the building, since we has 2x the space. Our roommates used the same facilities we did.
    • Jd 13y ago
      The tenant in question had converted his living room and kitchen into multiple additional "bedrooms" so that he could handle more capacity via AirBnB In some cases the distinction may be subtle; in this case, not really.
      • malandrew 13y ago
        He had people sleeping in the kitchen? Sleeping on the couch makes sense, but converting the kitchen into a sleeping area certainly sounds like an outlier.
• shittyanalogy 13y ago
  Good. Before Airbnb, when craigslist was the go to for short term rentals, they were not only cheaper but didn't come along with the stigma of ruining the neighborhood or being treated like a customer instead of a guest. There was much more of a mutual respect and even a feeling of gratitude on both sides. Now with Airbnb the whole things wreaks of an (illegal) business transaction with a flimsy guarantee, neighbors who want to catch you, no such gratitude to speak of and the costs have doubled. The whole thing is obnoxious.
  • Tossrock 13y ago
    (just FYI, you wreak havoc if you cause lots of damage, but rotten fish reeks)
  • driverdan 13y ago
    Higher prices make a lot of sense. Airbnb provides a level of vetting and feedback that adds a lot of value and security to both sides. It's easy to scam someone on craigslist when there's no reputation system.
    • shittyanalogy 13y ago
      No it doesn't, I've been scammed as a renter on Airbnb and people have been scammed as hosts. The increased cost comes from the market transition from "let's help eachother while we're both on vacation" to "Come stay at my apartment while I stay at my friends place and make half my rent from you over the weekend."
• surana90 13y ago
  Something similar happened in Singapore too last year.
  • hatu 13y ago
    Somehow I'm not surprised.
• jqm 13y ago
  I never understood the Airbnb business model. Sure, some regulations seem designed primarily to protect existing interests, but more often, there are very good reasons for the regulation. For instance, I believe hotels must maintain a record of visitors car license plates. And they are often inspected by health departments. I'm all for innovation, but I don't think we can throw out an entire regulatory framework that took decades to develop. There is just too much that can go wrong. As for 10 or 20 billion dollar valuation for Airbnb? Reality says "Ridiculous!".
  • tptacek 13y ago
    A 10+ figure valuation for something that extracts 80% of the value of a hotel chain while sustaining 1% of its costs and at the same time handsomely remunerating the vendors that provide its inventory does not sound at all crazy to me.
    • jqm 13y ago
      Boy I would sure hate to see what crazy sounds like to you then:)
      • jqm 13y ago
        Is it an idea that is not easily executable by someone else? Does it have a high technical/expense barrier to entry? I'm sorry, the valuation at those levels just seems way way out of proportion. Never mind the underlying legal problems.
      • tptacek 13y ago
        Something where you can't draw a straight line between execution and billions of dollars in profits?
      • lectrick 13y ago
        A new form of money that nobody controls, which has its ledger stored in a public decentralized database, with cryptographically-secured transactions, with a limited total number of units, whose unit value is decided by the market, and where new units of the currency are introduced over time in a decreasing schedule by paying them to the enforcers of the security of the network, who are all voluntary. There is no way this crazy idea could ever actually work...
• varelse 13y ago
  Assuming they live in a unit subject to The Ellis Act, SF renters benefit from ludicrous amounts of rent control that cause unending headaches for small-scale landlords. No sympathy for the renters in question here whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act I have personally run into a guy who was subletting his unit out for twice his monthly rent. This is completely illegal and with good reason. The Ellis Act was not put in place to help renters make a little extra cash but rather to protect them from sudden rent increases. I don't agree with The Ellis Act, in fact I wish it would die because while I think it was well-intended, it has too many unforeseen negative consequences and effects. And before you dismiss me as some teabagger conservative, here's Paul Krugman on the subject of rent control: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-... And AirBnB should know better. No sympathy for them either.
  • driverdan 13y ago
    Good to see Krugman actually got something right, even if it was back in 2000. SF has many ridiculous laws pertaining to real estate and rentals. If they got rid of rent control and eased their building restrictions they'd have more housing and more affordable housing.
    • dclowd9901 13y ago
      They would certainly have more housing, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be any more affordable. There is simply more people who want to live there than it could possibly support, even now. Hell, I'm a developer and I can't even afford to live there.
      • malandrew 13y ago
        It most certainly would be more affordable, but just not immediately. There is a backlog of 30+ years of market correction to endure before things return to where they should be. How quickly that correction occurs depends on the political will of those governing the city.
    • 13y ago
• epo 13y ago
  Subletting rental property means you are abusing your landlord's assets, almost certainly violates the terms of your lease and probably violates their insurance policies. Eviction is an appropriate and proportionate response.
  • YokoZar 13y ago
    The City of San Francisco is using this law to threaten people who do this with the explicit permission of their landlords. Or who own their own place.
• scelerat 13y ago
  I guess I'm surprised to learn that any such subletting is illegal in SF. Even prior to AirBnB it was really common to see offers on Craigslist or simply through traditional networks of friends and acquaintances, "Sublet my apartment while I'm traveling for six weeks," or "SFO-NYC apartment swap."
  • furyg3 13y ago
    Six weeks would be legitimate in most places, depending on how the city defines "short term rental". Most cities have such a definition. Of course, if you are a renter your rental agreement would need to allow for subletting or you would permission...
    • scelerat 13y ago
      Or two weeks, or whatever.
  • ghaff 13y ago
    It's the difference between technically illegal (or against terms of lease/contract/etc.) activities taking place relatively informally and at small-scale and being institutionalized. It's just like no one was going to come after you in the eighties because you made a mixtape but Napster was another story.
  • orky56 13y ago
    It's much more widespread now with Airbnb than with Craigslist. Craigslist is more promiscuous and serendipitous whereas Airbnb is more corporate and explicit. If a whole company that is valued at $10b has a business model for this, one would assume that such a service is completely legal. That's the heart of the issue here. It's gotten to the size now where media, landlords, and government have to step in before it becomes a black market of sorts.
  • jonknee 13y ago
    Such subletting (which on a nightly basis isn't subletting at all) is illegal almost everywhere. There is a reason why hotels pay hotel taxes and it's not just because they're not a cool startup.
• slg 13y ago
  I think there is an interesting comparison to be made between Airbnb and past file sharing companies like Megaupload or Napster. In the ideal situation, these services can be used completely legally. However, a majority of these businesses' customers seem to be using the service for illegal means. These companies profit on the scale of their business, so they have little motivation to cut down on that illegal activity. The only real difference is the victim of the "crime" taking place. The victims in the case of file sharing companies were a powerful and centralized industry. The victims in the case of Airbnb are its customers. Is the fact that the laws are being broken by the same people they are meant to protect enough to make Airbnb more viable long term then the other businesses founded on illegal transactions?
• ThePhysicist 13y ago
  The lack of interest on the side of AirBnB is not very surprising: They know exactly that renting out apartments without a proper license is illegal in most parts of the world, they just don't care since they can externalize the risk to the owners of the apartments. Personally, I can understand the frustration of the people that are on the loosing end of this business model: Neighbors who find that their building has become a busy hotel complex, landlords who see the value of their property decline by overuse and noise, hotels that face an army of competitors which don't pay taxes and don't comply with existing regulations, and the whole community that faces increasing rents. Uber provides a similar example by creating a "parallel market" for taxis and putting established companies (which comply with existing regulations) under extreme pressure. In general I'm a big fan of the "free market" model, but gaining an unfair advantage by just ignoring existing laws and hoping to get away with it is not a legitimate business practice, I think.
• wuliwong 13y ago
  I'd guess that the number of people receiving eviction letters "out of the blue" is pretty small. I recently had a couple run-ins with my management company and the last thing they want to do is evict me. They just want me to stop the offending behavior. I think the important thing is the agreement between tenant and landlord (or condo association, etc). From my perspective, if those agreements are specific about no subletting then I don't see how it even matters if there is a city-wide ban? There isn't a city-wide ban of smoking in residential buildings in Atlanta but I am not allowed to smoke in mine. That seems to be analogous. I believe the fault lies with both AirBnB and the renter. I see people mostly harping on AirBnB and it does seem they could do more to make the renter think about the legality of the situation or check a box stating that they have the legal right to do so. But as a long time renter, I've always been well aware that in every rental agreement I've signed, it is a violation to sublet at least with out consent from my landlord. The idea that there is some connection between morality and abiding by all laws is silly. There are so many ridiculous laws on the books, it is laughable. Over here in Atlanta, it is illegal to engage in oral sex. I don't believe I'm am a bad person for breaking that law as often as humanly possible. Again, I think that violating a piece of state or city legislation of which I had nothing to do with enacting is far different from me violating an agreement which I myself signed.
  • worldsoup 13y ago
    the article made it sound like the city/planning department was serving the eviction notice...not the landlord. Not sure how that would work though.
  • avalaunch 13y ago
    I imagine renters are more likely to get eviction letters out of the blue if they are living in a rent controlled property and their landlord is thus incentivized to evict and raise the rent.
• winstonx 13y ago
  Many posts here express dismay at Airbnb's selective disregard for the law. Companies often ignore laws when it is expected to be profitable. It's a simple matter of risk management. And it is a straightforward consequence of our economic and legal system. See this 2012 article "Should Companies Obey the Law If Breaking It Is More Profitable?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/should-companies-obey-the-law_b_1650037.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/should-companie...
  • npizzolato 13y ago
    Then we should change the equation. Maybe if we started prosecuting executives that break the law instead of just fining the companies, we would start having companies that follow the law.
  • bsder 13y ago
    Exactly. Companies need to receive the death penalty for some of these infractions so that there is no incentive to game the laws. After a investors lose 100%, they will stop funding companies that do illegal stuff.
• lafar6502 13y ago
  How is it legal to take a commision from illegal activity? If people are using AirBNB for breaking the law, AirBNB should be prosecuted too.
• taude 13y ago
  Our condo association is updating the bi-laws for forbid short-term subletting. I'm sure other owner-occupied places will eventually, too, especially in many high-priced urban neighborhoods. Who wants to live in an expensive home they purchased to only have neighbors renting it out for short-term rentals?
• greggarious 13y ago
  I don't think this entirely will kill AirBnB. For example, I used AirBnB when doing an internship. Since it was >30 days, it was legal. I liked that I was able to read reviews, verify identities, and in a worst case scenario contact my credit card company's fraud department and get my money back. There's a huge demand for medium term sublets in SF. People doing internships, people who need a place to get some breathing room for a couple months while they hunt for a more permanent space, that sort of thing. Is it worth billions? Probably not. But I'd say it plays as useful a role as say, Craigslist.
• bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  On a related note, the city of Amsterdam recently distributed a clear and friendly leaflet regarding the do's and don'ts of private short-term rentals: http://www.iamsterdam.com/holiday%20rental%20guidelines http://www.iamsterdam.com/holiday%20rental%20guidelines Clearly it's a prelude to a crack down, but the rules are clear, reasonable and communicated well up front.
• IanDrake 13y ago
  Ah, the never ending chain of well meaning laws that require more questionable laws, backed up by objectionable laws, with the gaps filled by laws only Stalin would be proud of. People visit from out of town and use town resources, so we need to tax them without taxing the locals...let's create a hotel tax. The locals don't pay it, so no one cares. How do we track the hotels to make sure we get our tax money? We'll need a licensing process. Again no one cares. Hotels form a lobby and say, hey, we're paying these taxes and getting these licenses, maybe you should create a few laws to protect us and limit the licenses so we stay in business. Some people care. Finally, a neighbor sees my house and my frequent guests (because I have a lot of friends that visit) and reports me to the Gestapo and says I might be renting my place out on AirBnb. Without any due process I get fined for violating a law meant to protect an industry that pays taxes to pay for the visitors that use city services that I actually live in and pay taxes. Now I really care, but it's too late. Violating your lease is wrong, but so is violating due process. I also believe I have the right as a property owner to rent out my property as long as its purpose doesn't change.
• samstave 13y ago
  How about SF focus on the shanigans of corrupt poiticians, like Leland Ye and others, and STFU about an actual great service like AirBnB. If they want to regulate it, make AirBnB carry massive insurance - divide that cost of insurance across the thousands-of-user-hours per nightly rental.
• xcntktn 13y ago
  "Airbnb's website tells people to check local laws and their leases. A specific section on San Francisco explains the prohibition on short-term rentals and links to various city codes." So why doesn't AirBnB simply disallow listings from SF? Worried that will impact their valuation?
• d0m 13y ago
  It's a recurrent theme to see somewhat illegal startups becoming massive and then adjusting for the laws. I.e. youtube, airbnb, rapgenius. That's one kind of unfair advantage that startups have over bigger organisations where they can spread and grow quickly even if a bit illegal (or on the grey line). I'm just speculating here but I'm wondering if it couldn't be a good indicator of success for upcoming startups.. I.e. something a tiny big illegal gaining some adoptions. But then, it's fair to ask, how far are founders willing to go in the "illegal" side for the success of their startup?
• abalashov 13y ago
  I have a fairly libertarian view of local regulations, and, unlike many commentators on the issue, have little sympathy for NIMBY attitudes from neighbours. In my opinion, if someone rents out a rented apartment, that should be subordinated to the subletting clause in their lease, but if someone owns an apartment, they should be able to rent it out to whomever they please, at whatever frequency, and charge whatever price they like to do so. They are, of course, obligated to take responsibility for any disruptions, nuisances, damage, etc. caused by the guests, as per normal building regulations, but I don't think the possibility of renting itself should be impaired by any local regulations. The Airbnb model is simply disruptive, and hotels don't like that. That's how I see it. I am especially unsympathetic to the argument that the neighbours have a "right" not to live "next to a hotel". There's nothing inherently hostile about a hotel as an application of an apartment, versus any other less controversial applications of an apartment that result in occasional comings and goings of strangers, such as parties and social gatherings. If the hotel causes them specific problems, they have a right to redress those specific grievances. That's about it. My view of this is strongly connected to the idea that property rights to real estate should incorporate the freedom to use the property as you'd like, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I don't find much plausibility in the idea that renting it out in and of itself harms anyone. Many things that Airbnb renters can do can cause annoyance or harm. So can a drunk friend getting rowdy at my dinner party. So what? I can't have guests? Oh, I can? What about guests that stay a few days? Yeah? Why not paying guests then?
  • geebee 13y ago
    I've seen a few versions of this comment. You are stating your interest in converting a single family house into a hotel, and then stating that you see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to do this. I disagree. While I understand that renting out bedrooms on airbnb is a far more profitable use of a single family house than providing a place for your kids to sleep, I purchased a house in an area zoned for single family use. When I purchased, I traded my right to turn my house into a hotel in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that the neighbors I share a wall with won't do this either.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• davidf18 13y ago
  As a resident in Manhattan where the situation of Airbnb renting facilitating illegal use of apartments. We pay a lot of money to have security in our buildings with doormen and other secure systems. We do not want transients in our buildings. Airbnb is intentionally setting up a situation where people are breaking the law and this should not be tolerated. They could easily have a questionnaire that vets facilities for legal Airbnb use as part of the signup process for cities such as NYC and SF. Moreover, they should have Airbnb employees verify that the apartments listed on the Airbnb site are following laws. The real issue is that a number of reputable firms are funding Airbnb and it is these firms people should pressure. They are in fact, funding a firm which knowingly facilitates illegal activities in NYC and SF. According to Crunchbase these firms include: Y Combinator, Sequoia Capital, Greylock Partners, SV Angel, Andreessen Horowitz, Jeff Bezos, Ashton Kushner, and others. Some of these firms such as Sequoia, Greylock, and Andreessen Horowitz get funds from other organizations or individuals and these funders of Sequoia, Greylock, and Andreessen Horowitz should withdraw their funds if their funds are knowingly used to finance illegal activities or a site that facilitates illegal activities. These firms are knowing funding a firm which they know is helping people to break the law and should be held accountable for funding firms which break the law. These firms should hire as managers of Airbnb and other firms which they fund who have zero tolerance for breaking the law or trying to violate the spirit of the law. I do applaud Airbnb's attempts to lower the cost of transient stays in NYC and SF. But this should be done through a legal mechanism such as building low-cost hotels in NYC and SF (with partners perhaps) and then listing these low-cost hotels on their site.