5 ms·

This is very non-scientific and anecdotal, but perhaps worth mentioning: The reaction of "regularfolk" to AirBNB feels very negative. I'm a very active host o

by nlh 13y ago

This is very non-scientific and anecdotal, but perhaps worth mentioning: The reaction of "regularfolk" to AirBNB feels very negative. I'm a very active host of a single unit in NYC (and have had a remarkably positive experience - met some wonderful people, received dozens of thank-you notes and gifts, etc.) But my non-tech friends and folks I tell about this can't get it. "You let strangers stay in your apartment? Are you nuts?" "You're running a gypsy hotel in your living room." "AirBNB should be illegal. Why don't people just stay in a regular hotel?" "Why would someone want to stay in your place when they can just get a hotel room?" It hasn't improved over the past few years either. So although AirBNB feels like a darling of the tech community, a LOT of regular people see it in a negative light. I give the pitch every time I talk about it, but it doesn't get me very far. 'Enjoy this while it lasts'

mjolk 13y ago
I'm probably not a "regularfolk" in your eyes. I hate AirBnB in NYC. Why should you be able to rent out your apartment and increase the risk of break-ins and pest-infestations for the entire building? Your neighbors receive no benefit in the AirBnB.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  I don't really care for airbnb either way outside of admiring the way it uses technology to try and solve a problem, so I am left wondering based on what your saying is that if the incentive structure were more aligned between all parties typically involved (I'm not saying what that could be because I only have vague ideas), would that be more palatable? Edit: Monetary gain need not be the only incentive.
  - mjolk 13y ago
    >If the incentive structure were more aligned between all parties typically involved (I'm not saying what that could be because I only have vague ideas), would that be more palatable? No. My girlfriend and I pay rent in a nice neighborhood so that we have a safe, quiet place to live in NYC. Increased risk of vermin, strangers in the hallway, and giving a stranger a set of keys to the building is not worth an extra bit of money. It's really unacceptable.
    - why-el 13y ago
      > Increased risk of vermin, strangers in the hallway, and giving a stranger a set of keys to the building is not worth an extra bit of money. To you, of course. Other people might have different reasons. I don't know whats unacceptable about this.
      - EC1 13y ago
        I am neutral on AirBNB. Both sides have completely fair arguments and I find myself agreeing from all angles. I don't think it's as black and white as people make it out to be. I think there are specific situations where AirBNB is great, and ones where it isn't. I hope all turmoil surrounding this new "protocol" (I'm going to call it a protocol instead of AirBNB) will help establish a legal base around it, paving the way for such businesses in the future. Maybe AirBNB is the "stepping stone" to running businesses out of your house? Maybe instead of just housing, it will be mechanics, it will be artisans of all sorts.
      - mjolk 13y ago
        >I don't know whats unacceptable about this. It's against the terms of the lease for the building and the law. If the lease had the statement "tenants may rent out their apartments (counter to the law)" then I wouldn't have grounds to complain. I also would not have rented a unit in the building.
        cinquemb 13y ago
        There are many things codified in laws and agreements that people break everyday that go ignored across the spectrum of offenses occurred. If they were sufficient enough in addressing the problems that arise from airbnb and the like, we wouldn't be discussing such today. What I predict after some elongated period of time to the chagrin of those who have been affected (and who will continue to be) surrounding this specific case(s) with airbnb is that the law will hold airbnb more responsible, yet the problems mentioned here will still remain because the void will be filled by non physical entity (read: software protocol) that cannot appear in court. And then government will still have to exert resources going after the same actors post facto, and people will still be complaining without doing anything about it.
  - oh_sigh 13y ago
    Yes...the people who put their apartments reap all the benefits, while subjecting their neighbors to increased chances of robbery, increased chances of bedbug/infestations, increased noise complaints, etc.
    - aetherson 13y ago
      Well, sure. But, then, isn't that just generally life? I live in a single-family home in San Francisco, and my house's walls literally touch the houses on either side. If one of my neighbors sells or (legally) rents their home to miscreants, I have increased risk of a bunch of things from inconvenient (noise) to life-threatening (fire), but I get none of the money from my neighbor's house sale. Obviously, there comes some point when negative externalities rise to the point of being worth regulating against (my neighbors should not be able to do ordinance tests in their backyard), but equally obviously, there are plenty of negative externalities that are not worth regulating against. I think it's generally under-argued that the negative externalities of AirBnB rise to the level of being worthwhile regulating.
      - mjolk 13y ago
        Single family homes that are privately owned are a strawman argument. Even if you rent your single family home, a renter only gets the keys to your building, is likely to only potentially damage the things within your four walls, and not in a position to easily break into other apartment units.
        aetherson 13y ago
        A few points: First, a "strawman" argument is when I attack a position you do not hold. I don't think I claimed anywhere that you were speaking to single-family homes -- I certainly didn't intend to. Second, I'm genuinely confused as to what line you're drawing -- you seem to think it's obvious -- between my rights as someone who lives near other people while renting, and someone who lives near other people while owning. On some level, my risk seems greater: if I were a renter, I could after all just move if my neighbors prove troublesome, while if I own, they can destroy the value of an asset I have even if I personally flee the scene. I agree with you that we can see some avenues of potential risk that apply only to people living in multi-tenant buildings (keys, etc). But this is what I mean about your point being under-argued: all you seem to be doing is listing some potential negative externalities. Everything has potential negative externalities. You could hit me with your car. You could create a fire in your home that would burn down city blocks. What seems to be missing is both: 1. Some kind of statement about those potentials becoming actuals. How much do the neighbors of AirBnB hosts ACTUALLY suffer? Are the stories of floating brothels etc rare exceptions, or commonplace? 2. Some kind of at least suggestion of where the line between actionable and non-actionable externalities lies. I do not mean to suggest that these are either easy requirements to satisfy, or that I'm trying to dismiss your argument. I'm just trying to move the conversation past the listing of possible negative externalities. I agree with you. They exist. But where do we go from there?
  - brudgers 13y ago
    The reason it is at best difficult and more typically impossible to align the interests of all stakeholders is that the AirBnB model internalizes profits and externalizes significant costs. Neighbors bear costs but have no seat at the table, or rather their seat at the table in the form of land use regulations created via due process is ignored by both renters and rentees. If AirBnB were to listen to all stakeholders and not just customers and investors the consensus would be a resounding 'No!'
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Fair enough, but airbnb wasn't the first to capitalize on the void in the market (for short term stay for cheap, non hostel), and nor will it be the last. It's not like these problems just appeared with airbnb, right? And if we push the problems down the road, whats to stop a decentralized network where the listors profit even more with even less payout for negative externalities? Maybe in that case, listors assume more risk, but as it is now, I don't see property owners being proactive and mining listing sites for their properties. Illegal in some areas or not, the law moves too slow to appease the crowd. Hell, I even tried (I took down the website though, might open source it if enough interest) launching a SaaS app last year that did just that, and talked to some of my Real estate friends in NYC and here's the feedback one gave me from the landlords/managers she talked to: "I spoke with 6 landlords and one real estate property manger and here's what I left with: 1. All the landlords with smaller portfolios agreed that there was no need for such a service, especially if they paid for it. They knew their buildings very well - and the doorman always kept them in the loop. 2. The property manager did not see a use for the service at all. He was actually a bit offended that I asked him about it, but he had a few good points: - Buildings with property managers keep pretty good tabs on who is coming in and out of their building. Especially if there is a doorman. - He questioned how data on the website would be verified and felt that simply "pulling listings" from other websites was not enough. There are inaccurate listings all over the web - especially in NYC. 3. My personal thoughts are that you would need a dedicated team to verify and confirm air bnb services. Also, after they find out that someone is illegally subletting - what next? Does the website offer a solution? The landlords I spoke with typically used illegal subletting to charge their own tenant additional fees (like $100/day until the illegal subletter is out) so in the case someone is silly enough to do so - they can make money off of it." The cognitive dissonance on one side in this market is telling me that if airbnb looses this battle, I should do something for the side of the market that is actually trying to solve their problems and pay for it. But, If you know a landlord or property manager that actually has this problem and wants to make money of trying to solve the problems arising because of the negative externalities rather than moan that government isn't doing enough, point me in their direction because I would love to talk more! Can reach me at my username here with gmail.
- argumentum 13y ago
  You can't prove either of your assertions, it seems extremely unlikely that break-ins or especially pest-infestations would increase due to airbnb. Should your neighbors receive a benefit from everything you do in the privacy of your own home? Can you name one specific incident that airbnb has caused to you and therefore merits your hatred? I doubt it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
brudgers 13y ago
my non-tech friends and folks I tell about this can't get it. They get it and they don't agree with you. To understand why, make a list of all the benefits which typically accrue to a family living next door to an AirBnB rental.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  If they "got it" I would expect complaints like the ones you see here (externalizing costs to the neighbors) rather than complaints like > "You let strangers stay in your apartment? Are you nuts?" which ignores the various mechanisms airbnb has in place to deal with these problems (reputation, insurance, etc) along with the fact that quantifying, buying, and selling risk are problems that the modern economy is good at solving in general (i.e. if there's a shortcoming in airbnb's current approach to risk, they have a decent shot at fixing it).
JonFish85 13y ago
Also anecdotal, but as a person in the process of buying a condo, I've found that all of the condo associations I've looked at specifically state that you can't lease out your place to anyone for a period of less than 3 months (most are 6+ months, one had 3 months). The biggest reason for this seems to be insurance reasons, although personally I also don't want my building full of people short-term rentals either.
diogenescynic 13y ago
Residential zoning laws prevent short-term illegal conversions in order to protect limited, affordable housing stock from being turned into makeshift hotels, which raises rents, creates a nuisance to neighbors as well as unanticipated impacts on the quality of life.

by nlh 13y ago

mjolk 13y ago

I'm probably not a "regularfolk" in your eyes. I hate AirBnB in NYC. Why should you be able to rent out your apartment and increase the risk of break-ins and pest-infestations for the entire building? Your neighbors receive no benefit in the AirBnB.

cinquemb 13y ago
I don't really care for airbnb either way outside of admiring the way it uses technology to try and solve a problem, so I am left wondering based on what your saying is that if the incentive structure were more aligned between all parties typically involved (I'm not saying what that could be because I only have vague ideas), would that be more palatable? Edit: Monetary gain need not be the only incentive.
- mjolk 13y ago
  >If the incentive structure were more aligned between all parties typically involved (I'm not saying what that could be because I only have vague ideas), would that be more palatable? No. My girlfriend and I pay rent in a nice neighborhood so that we have a safe, quiet place to live in NYC. Increased risk of vermin, strangers in the hallway, and giving a stranger a set of keys to the building is not worth an extra bit of money. It's really unacceptable.
  - why-el 13y ago
    > Increased risk of vermin, strangers in the hallway, and giving a stranger a set of keys to the building is not worth an extra bit of money. To you, of course. Other people might have different reasons. I don't know whats unacceptable about this.
    - EC1 13y ago
      I am neutral on AirBNB. Both sides have completely fair arguments and I find myself agreeing from all angles. I don't think it's as black and white as people make it out to be. I think there are specific situations where AirBNB is great, and ones where it isn't. I hope all turmoil surrounding this new "protocol" (I'm going to call it a protocol instead of AirBNB) will help establish a legal base around it, paving the way for such businesses in the future. Maybe AirBNB is the "stepping stone" to running businesses out of your house? Maybe instead of just housing, it will be mechanics, it will be artisans of all sorts.
    - mjolk 13y ago
      >I don't know whats unacceptable about this. It's against the terms of the lease for the building and the law. If the lease had the statement "tenants may rent out their apartments (counter to the law)" then I wouldn't have grounds to complain. I also would not have rented a unit in the building.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        There are many things codified in laws and agreements that people break everyday that go ignored across the spectrum of offenses occurred. If they were sufficient enough in addressing the problems that arise from airbnb and the like, we wouldn't be discussing such today. What I predict after some elongated period of time to the chagrin of those who have been affected (and who will continue to be) surrounding this specific case(s) with airbnb is that the law will hold airbnb more responsible, yet the problems mentioned here will still remain because the void will be filled by non physical entity (read: software protocol) that cannot appear in court. And then government will still have to exert resources going after the same actors post facto, and people will still be complaining without doing anything about it.
- oh_sigh 13y ago
  Yes...the people who put their apartments reap all the benefits, while subjecting their neighbors to increased chances of robbery, increased chances of bedbug/infestations, increased noise complaints, etc.
  - aetherson 13y ago
    Well, sure. But, then, isn't that just generally life? I live in a single-family home in San Francisco, and my house's walls literally touch the houses on either side. If one of my neighbors sells or (legally) rents their home to miscreants, I have increased risk of a bunch of things from inconvenient (noise) to life-threatening (fire), but I get none of the money from my neighbor's house sale. Obviously, there comes some point when negative externalities rise to the point of being worth regulating against (my neighbors should not be able to do ordinance tests in their backyard), but equally obviously, there are plenty of negative externalities that are not worth regulating against. I think it's generally under-argued that the negative externalities of AirBnB rise to the level of being worthwhile regulating.
    - mjolk 13y ago
      Single family homes that are privately owned are a strawman argument. Even if you rent your single family home, a renter only gets the keys to your building, is likely to only potentially damage the things within your four walls, and not in a position to easily break into other apartment units.
      - aetherson 13y ago
        A few points: First, a "strawman" argument is when I attack a position you do not hold. I don't think I claimed anywhere that you were speaking to single-family homes -- I certainly didn't intend to. Second, I'm genuinely confused as to what line you're drawing -- you seem to think it's obvious -- between my rights as someone who lives near other people while renting, and someone who lives near other people while owning. On some level, my risk seems greater: if I were a renter, I could after all just move if my neighbors prove troublesome, while if I own, they can destroy the value of an asset I have even if I personally flee the scene. I agree with you that we can see some avenues of potential risk that apply only to people living in multi-tenant buildings (keys, etc). But this is what I mean about your point being under-argued: all you seem to be doing is listing some potential negative externalities. Everything has potential negative externalities. You could hit me with your car. You could create a fire in your home that would burn down city blocks. What seems to be missing is both: 1. Some kind of statement about those potentials becoming actuals. How much do the neighbors of AirBnB hosts ACTUALLY suffer? Are the stories of floating brothels etc rare exceptions, or commonplace? 2. Some kind of at least suggestion of where the line between actionable and non-actionable externalities lies. I do not mean to suggest that these are either easy requirements to satisfy, or that I'm trying to dismiss your argument. I'm just trying to move the conversation past the listing of possible negative externalities. I agree with you. They exist. But where do we go from there?
- brudgers 13y ago
  The reason it is at best difficult and more typically impossible to align the interests of all stakeholders is that the AirBnB model internalizes profits and externalizes significant costs. Neighbors bear costs but have no seat at the table, or rather their seat at the table in the form of land use regulations created via due process is ignored by both renters and rentees. If AirBnB were to listen to all stakeholders and not just customers and investors the consensus would be a resounding 'No!'
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Fair enough, but airbnb wasn't the first to capitalize on the void in the market (for short term stay for cheap, non hostel), and nor will it be the last. It's not like these problems just appeared with airbnb, right? And if we push the problems down the road, whats to stop a decentralized network where the listors profit even more with even less payout for negative externalities? Maybe in that case, listors assume more risk, but as it is now, I don't see property owners being proactive and mining listing sites for their properties. Illegal in some areas or not, the law moves too slow to appease the crowd. Hell, I even tried (I took down the website though, might open source it if enough interest) launching a SaaS app last year that did just that, and talked to some of my Real estate friends in NYC and here's the feedback one gave me from the landlords/managers she talked to: "I spoke with 6 landlords and one real estate property manger and here's what I left with: 1. All the landlords with smaller portfolios agreed that there was no need for such a service, especially if they paid for it. They knew their buildings very well - and the doorman always kept them in the loop. 2. The property manager did not see a use for the service at all. He was actually a bit offended that I asked him about it, but he had a few good points: - Buildings with property managers keep pretty good tabs on who is coming in and out of their building. Especially if there is a doorman. - He questioned how data on the website would be verified and felt that simply "pulling listings" from other websites was not enough. There are inaccurate listings all over the web - especially in NYC. 3. My personal thoughts are that you would need a dedicated team to verify and confirm air bnb services. Also, after they find out that someone is illegally subletting - what next? Does the website offer a solution? The landlords I spoke with typically used illegal subletting to charge their own tenant additional fees (like $100/day until the illegal subletter is out) so in the case someone is silly enough to do so - they can make money off of it." The cognitive dissonance on one side in this market is telling me that if airbnb looses this battle, I should do something for the side of the market that is actually trying to solve their problems and pay for it. But, If you know a landlord or property manager that actually has this problem and wants to make money of trying to solve the problems arising because of the negative externalities rather than moan that government isn't doing enough, point me in their direction because I would love to talk more! Can reach me at my username here with gmail.
argumentum 13y ago
You can't prove either of your assertions, it seems extremely unlikely that break-ins or especially pest-infestations would increase due to airbnb. Should your neighbors receive a benefit from everything you do in the privacy of your own home? Can you name one specific incident that airbnb has caused to you and therefore merits your hatred? I doubt it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

brudgers 13y ago

my non-tech friends and folks I tell about this can't get it. They get it and they don't agree with you. To understand why, make a list of all the benefits which typically accrue to a family living next door to an AirBnB rental.

jjoonathan 13y ago
If they "got it" I would expect complaints like the ones you see here (externalizing costs to the neighbors) rather than complaints like > "You let strangers stay in your apartment? Are you nuts?" which ignores the various mechanisms airbnb has in place to deal with these problems (reputation, insurance, etc) along with the fact that quantifying, buying, and selling risk are problems that the modern economy is good at solving in general (i.e. if there's a shortcoming in airbnb's current approach to risk, they have a decent shot at fixing it).

JonFish85 13y ago

Also anecdotal, but as a person in the process of buying a condo, I've found that all of the condo associations I've looked at specifically state that you can't lease out your place to anyone for a period of less than 3 months (most are 6+ months, one had 3 months). The biggest reason for this seems to be insurance reasons, although personally I also don't want my building full of people short-term rentals either.

diogenescynic 13y ago

Residential zoning laws prevent short-term illegal conversions in order to protect limited, affordable housing stock from being turned into makeshift hotels, which raises rents, creates a nuisance to neighbors as well as unanticipated impacts on the quality of life.