4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- why-el 13y ago
  Fair point and I totally agree. I was responding to your bit about it not being worth the money, which I don't think you generalize to everyone. After all people want to make a bit of money and could have a variety of reasons to want to do so.

by why-el 13y ago

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.
why-el 13y ago
Fair point and I totally agree. I was responding to your bit about it not being worth the money, which I don't think you generalize to everyone. After all people want to make a bit of money and could have a variety of reasons to want to do so.