12 ms·

Window into Airbnb’s hidden impact on SF

148 points by jamesjyu 12y ago

untog 12y ago
The overall implication here seems to be that the majority (just about) are using AirBnb in the way that AirBnb says they do. But there is a minority that are using it heavily for commercial enterprises, and there's a potential that AirBnb could be tripped up by them, legally. The easiest thing to do would be to enforce stricter rules to push the commercial entities out of the AirBnb system... but those are also probably the people who make AirBnb the most money.
- dougmccune 12y ago
  This isn't technically true. AirBnb likes to claim their hosts operate within the limits of the local laws. Even if you're not doing a full-time hotel, if you're a renter yourself you're almost certainly at least breaking the terms of your lease, and local SF law already makes renting a unit out for < 30 days illegal. AirBnB's make believe universe is about room sharing and couch surfing (all of which would be much more legal). But as much as they talk up the "sharing" aspect, >60% of the rentals shown in this article are for entire units, none of which is legal under current law. You can still defend the practice by saying you don't agree with the law. But AirBnB can't claim they expect their hosts to all abide by local laws when in this case it's clear that a majority of their hosts are not.
  - nickonline 12y ago
    Are short term stays illegal in SF? So if I was to stay there for 3 weeks I'd need to be in a hotel? That seems crazy.
    - lmm 12y ago
      Hotels have an impact on their surroundings. If you're operating a hotel it needs to be licensed as such. That seems reasonable to me.
    - judk 12y ago
      Why? Legalistically, "Hotel" just means "complies with short-term stay laws". Can be "bed and breakfast" or "extended stay" or whatever.
maxcan 12y ago
Even if a large number of hosts were running full time hotels, which they clearly are not, what is so horrible about that? Do the "progressives" in S.F. believe that this should be a city that only people who can afford $400/night hotel rooms should be able to visit? Our city's hotel market is almost as screwed up as our residential market.
- objclxt 12y ago
  A large number of listings are full time hotels. One host who has twenty rooms on AirBnB is clearly going to have more listings than one host rented out their spare bedroom. And if you can't see why this is a problem, maybe you should go take a look at the Wikipedia list of hotel fires in the US[1], and pay particular attention to just how many of those fires were caused by either failing to follow the fire codes or could have been prevented had decent fire code regulations been in place at the time. [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hotel_fires_in_the_United_States#Pathfinder_Hotel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hotel_fires_in_the_U...
- aestra 12y ago
  Maybe you read the original ordinance that was created in the 1980s to find out why. http://www.sftu.org/David%20Chiu%20-%20Hotelization%20Ordinance%20-%203%2027%202012.pdf http://www.sftu.org/David%20Chiu%20-%20Hotelization%20Ordina... also - http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=1980-1991:_RENT_CONTROL_WARS http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=1980-1991:_RENT_CONTROL_W...
ryandrake 12y ago
Airbnb disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to provide lodging services and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. Ride sharing services disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to provide driving services and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. Open-source software disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed publish software and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. 3D printers disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to produce physical goods and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. Peer-to-peer lending disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed provide loans and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. The Internet disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to publish all kinds of media and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers.
- x0x0 12y ago
  wow, do you get paid for this drivel? What airbnb "disrupted" is the idea that corporations should pay the taxes they are liable for, obey zoning laws, and respect their neighbors. There is relatively limited innovation once you get past tax dodging: vrbo, homeaway, et al, existed long before airbnb. And in what sense is consuming ride-sharing any different than paying a taxi? Unless you help drive when you're in the backseat of an uber vehicle, you're just as passive as you would be in the back seat of a taxi. Finally, plenty of people published stuff before the internet -- zines for starters, small newspapers, etc.
  - aestra 12y ago
    >And in what sense is consuming ride-sharing any different than paying a taxi? It isn't. When I think of "ride sharing" I think of friends or coworkers actually sharing rides. I used to do it back in high school. I worked with 3 friends and we all lived within a mile of each other. We would take turns driving the gang to and from work. That is ride sharing. It worked out great too! Or we had ride sharing boards back in college. Going back home for winter break and don't have a car? Find a fellow student who is going that way to drive you. At least drive you within 30 minutes and have a friend pick you up. Throw $20 at them for gas but you aren't paying them really and they aren't making a salary off of you. Plus they didn't just pick you up and bring you where you want to go, you just rode with them to somewhere they are going anyway. Once there is a business model involved it, commercials on TV, and are actually making money is just a business and a service not ride sharing. There's no sharing.
conanbatt 12y ago
What I dislike the most about Airbnb's whole controversial business model, is how the true innovation they did was bypassing laws. As property listing sites go, Airbnb did not produce any true innovation. And although they clearly must have done some things really well to generate so many people using their service(a.k.a. probably taking them out of craigslist), the really true 'innovation' they did was getting away from abiding regulation. Now that they are big, they are going to cooperate as much as possible to build regulatory walls so that another Airbnb wouldnt be able to show up and contest those rates. I have the same feeling from Uber/Lyft. The traditional taxi service is terrible for drivers, and they present true benefits to them: but only because they found a way to bypass the law by paying with the apps instead of giving money to the driver. (If I made a site on my own, and picked up people from the street and the gave me money in hand, i would be breaking the law). Now that they are big enough, they can also influence the rules enough to make it harder for future competition. These strategies can only work when the companies get big enough to influence the law making, or when they have such a strong market dominance(or monopoly) that they can now afford to abide by the rules (or to make them). So, in terms of Airbnb , the only innovative thing they did was finding a law loophole. Woohoo.
- untog 12y ago
  It's true. The model for startups these days is to get millions of dollars of funding and spend it all on lawyers who can negotiate your ability to work around laws and regulations. While many of those laws and regulations have no place existing, it still feels sad to me.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    You would not have this opinion if you have ever had to deal with someone illegally subletting their apartment. Or lived basically anywhere which has uni students.
    - untog 12y ago
      Why? I'm not suggesting all regulation should disappear, just that it's inarguable that some regulation out there is wrong.
drakaal 12y ago
I am an AirBnB Host. In Phoenix. I run close to a full time furnished Apartment Rental business. I like AirBnB for that. However, I have seen in SF places that are closer to hostel's and are far from safe or sanitary. Short Term Furnished Rental Properties feel like they should be legal, but 12 people squeezed in to a two bedroom apartment shouldn't be. There may be need for some disruption, but that should be balanced with public health and safety.
philipn 12y ago
I'm glad there's beginning to be some discussion on AirBnB's impact on the housing stock in SF. I really like AirBnB when I'm traveling or when I want a nice getaway, but it's been incredible to see how how many units around me here in SF are full-time AirBnB rentals. Walking down my block alone, I'd estimate that 30% of the units here are full-time on AirBnB. Each afternoon, I begin to see the tourists and travelers roll in with suitcases, and I've noticed an increasing number of coded lock-boxes outside of many of the houses near me Whether or not you support rent control is an entirely different issue, but I feel like AirBnB, as it presently operates, is incompatible with the system. In the days of yore, friends of mine would have rooms open up in their apartments and would rent them out to fellow tenants (or subtenants). Now, many folks I know are converting their open rooms (against SF law) to AirBnBs, as the tenants can make a killing off of them. There's always been bad actors in the SF rental market -- many people would sublease rooms directly to tenants for far above the rate they were paying to the landlord. I think AirBnB just makes it a bit more appealing.
- _delirium 12y ago
  Do apartment/condo buildings in SF not have some kind of tenants' or owners' association or management, with whom you agreed in a contract to some rules on how you can use your unit? I don't think you could get away with doing it that openly in Copenhagen even if there were no laws involved. If you're running your unit as basically a hotel, odds are that it's going to annoy at least one neighbor, who'll point out that your lease (if rented) or condo-purchase agreement (if owned) doesn't allow you to do that.
  - philipn 12y ago
    SF is a bit different than other communities in that most apartment buildings are really just these large, zany old victorians. Few have tenant associations or real management. My apartment, for instance, is a 4-address building, with each address subdivided into 4-5 sub-units. The building is owned and managed by someone who grew up in the building. I've lived in SF for 7 years, and never lived anywhere that's like a conventional apartment complex.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
return0 12y ago
What's surprising is how smoothly airbnb has invaded cities. There are relatively very little complaints or damage done, even as neighborhoods are being transformed.
kenko 12y ago
It's really a shame the author doesn't credit Tom Slee, who's done a lot of really great digging into Airbnb's numbers and their claims.
rch 12y ago
Airbnb could get ahead of regulations brewing in some places by asking hosts to declare that they are offering rooms in their primary residence, even if they won't be present during the stay. Property managers and other businesses operating through the site should probably be asked to declare themselves as well.
csense 12y ago
"From a policy perspective, the real issue is whether there are a lot of units that have been removed from the housing market because of short-term rentals...It looks like that’s not a big number yet, but that’s what we need regulation to control so it doesn’t become big." As someone who's never lived in SF (and in fact my somewhat depressed area's just beginning to recover from a ton of vacancies left by the mortgage crisis), it's amazing to me that the local government seems to be contemplating restricting supply and demand, and stifling economic activity like this.

148 points by jamesjyu 12y ago

untog 12y ago

The overall implication here seems to be that the majority (just about) are using AirBnb in the way that AirBnb says they do. But there is a minority that are using it heavily for commercial enterprises, and there's a potential that AirBnb could be tripped up by them, legally. The easiest thing to do would be to enforce stricter rules to push the commercial entities out of the AirBnb system... but those are also probably the people who make AirBnb the most money.

dougmccune 12y ago
This isn't technically true. AirBnb likes to claim their hosts operate within the limits of the local laws. Even if you're not doing a full-time hotel, if you're a renter yourself you're almost certainly at least breaking the terms of your lease, and local SF law already makes renting a unit out for < 30 days illegal. AirBnB's make believe universe is about room sharing and couch surfing (all of which would be much more legal). But as much as they talk up the "sharing" aspect, >60% of the rentals shown in this article are for entire units, none of which is legal under current law. You can still defend the practice by saying you don't agree with the law. But AirBnB can't claim they expect their hosts to all abide by local laws when in this case it's clear that a majority of their hosts are not.
- nickonline 12y ago
  Are short term stays illegal in SF? So if I was to stay there for 3 weeks I'd need to be in a hotel? That seems crazy.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Hotels have an impact on their surroundings. If you're operating a hotel it needs to be licensed as such. That seems reasonable to me.
  - judk 12y ago
    Why? Legalistically, "Hotel" just means "complies with short-term stay laws". Can be "bed and breakfast" or "extended stay" or whatever.

maxcan 12y ago

Even if a large number of hosts were running full time hotels, which they clearly are not, what is so horrible about that? Do the "progressives" in S.F. believe that this should be a city that only people who can afford $400/night hotel rooms should be able to visit? Our city's hotel market is almost as screwed up as our residential market.

objclxt 12y ago
A large number of listings are full time hotels. One host who has twenty rooms on AirBnB is clearly going to have more listings than one host rented out their spare bedroom. And if you can't see why this is a problem, maybe you should go take a look at the Wikipedia list of hotel fires in the US[1], and pay particular attention to just how many of those fires were caused by either failing to follow the fire codes or could have been prevented had decent fire code regulations been in place at the time. [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hotel_fires_in_the_United_States#Pathfinder_Hotel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hotel_fires_in_the_U...
aestra 12y ago
Maybe you read the original ordinance that was created in the 1980s to find out why. http://www.sftu.org/David%20Chiu%20-%20Hotelization%20Ordinance%20-%203%2027%202012.pdf http://www.sftu.org/David%20Chiu%20-%20Hotelization%20Ordina... also - http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=1980-1991:_RENT_CONTROL_WARS http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=1980-1991:_RENT_CONTROL_W...

ryandrake 12y ago

Airbnb disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to provide lodging services and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. Ride sharing services disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to provide driving services and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. Open-source software disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed publish software and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. 3D printers disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to produce physical goods and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. Peer-to-peer lending disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed provide loans and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers. The Internet disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people should be allowed to publish all kinds of media and the rest of us ought to be content with being passive consumers.

x0x0 12y ago
wow, do you get paid for this drivel? What airbnb "disrupted" is the idea that corporations should pay the taxes they are liable for, obey zoning laws, and respect their neighbors. There is relatively limited innovation once you get past tax dodging: vrbo, homeaway, et al, existed long before airbnb. And in what sense is consuming ride-sharing any different than paying a taxi? Unless you help drive when you're in the backseat of an uber vehicle, you're just as passive as you would be in the back seat of a taxi. Finally, plenty of people published stuff before the internet -- zines for starters, small newspapers, etc.
- aestra 12y ago
  >And in what sense is consuming ride-sharing any different than paying a taxi? It isn't. When I think of "ride sharing" I think of friends or coworkers actually sharing rides. I used to do it back in high school. I worked with 3 friends and we all lived within a mile of each other. We would take turns driving the gang to and from work. That is ride sharing. It worked out great too! Or we had ride sharing boards back in college. Going back home for winter break and don't have a car? Find a fellow student who is going that way to drive you. At least drive you within 30 minutes and have a friend pick you up. Throw $20 at them for gas but you aren't paying them really and they aren't making a salary off of you. Plus they didn't just pick you up and bring you where you want to go, you just rode with them to somewhere they are going anyway. Once there is a business model involved it, commercials on TV, and are actually making money is just a business and a service not ride sharing. There's no sharing.

conanbatt 12y ago

What I dislike the most about Airbnb's whole controversial business model, is how the true innovation they did was bypassing laws. As property listing sites go, Airbnb did not produce any true innovation. And although they clearly must have done some things really well to generate so many people using their service(a.k.a. probably taking them out of craigslist), the really true 'innovation' they did was getting away from abiding regulation. Now that they are big, they are going to cooperate as much as possible to build regulatory walls so that another Airbnb wouldnt be able to show up and contest those rates. I have the same feeling from Uber/Lyft. The traditional taxi service is terrible for drivers, and they present true benefits to them: but only because they found a way to bypass the law by paying with the apps instead of giving money to the driver. (If I made a site on my own, and picked up people from the street and the gave me money in hand, i would be breaking the law). Now that they are big enough, they can also influence the rules enough to make it harder for future competition. These strategies can only work when the companies get big enough to influence the law making, or when they have such a strong market dominance(or monopoly) that they can now afford to abide by the rules (or to make them). So, in terms of Airbnb , the only innovative thing they did was finding a law loophole. Woohoo.

untog 12y ago
It's true. The model for startups these days is to get millions of dollars of funding and spend it all on lawyers who can negotiate your ability to work around laws and regulations. While many of those laws and regulations have no place existing, it still feels sad to me.
- XorNot 12y ago
  You would not have this opinion if you have ever had to deal with someone illegally subletting their apartment. Or lived basically anywhere which has uni students.
  - untog 12y ago
    Why? I'm not suggesting all regulation should disappear, just that it's inarguable that some regulation out there is wrong.

drakaal 12y ago

I am an AirBnB Host. In Phoenix. I run close to a full time furnished Apartment Rental business. I like AirBnB for that. However, I have seen in SF places that are closer to hostel's and are far from safe or sanitary. Short Term Furnished Rental Properties feel like they should be legal, but 12 people squeezed in to a two bedroom apartment shouldn't be. There may be need for some disruption, but that should be balanced with public health and safety.

philipn 12y ago

I'm glad there's beginning to be some discussion on AirBnB's impact on the housing stock in SF. I really like AirBnB when I'm traveling or when I want a nice getaway, but it's been incredible to see how how many units around me here in SF are full-time AirBnB rentals. Walking down my block alone, I'd estimate that 30% of the units here are full-time on AirBnB. Each afternoon, I begin to see the tourists and travelers roll in with suitcases, and I've noticed an increasing number of coded lock-boxes outside of many of the houses near me Whether or not you support rent control is an entirely different issue, but I feel like AirBnB, as it presently operates, is incompatible with the system. In the days of yore, friends of mine would have rooms open up in their apartments and would rent them out to fellow tenants (or subtenants). Now, many folks I know are converting their open rooms (against SF law) to AirBnBs, as the tenants can make a killing off of them. There's always been bad actors in the SF rental market -- many people would sublease rooms directly to tenants for far above the rate they were paying to the landlord. I think AirBnB just makes it a bit more appealing.

_delirium 12y ago
Do apartment/condo buildings in SF not have some kind of tenants' or owners' association or management, with whom you agreed in a contract to some rules on how you can use your unit? I don't think you could get away with doing it that openly in Copenhagen even if there were no laws involved. If you're running your unit as basically a hotel, odds are that it's going to annoy at least one neighbor, who'll point out that your lease (if rented) or condo-purchase agreement (if owned) doesn't allow you to do that.
- philipn 12y ago
  SF is a bit different than other communities in that most apartment buildings are really just these large, zany old victorians. Few have tenant associations or real management. My apartment, for instance, is a 4-address building, with each address subdivided into 4-5 sub-units. The building is owned and managed by someone who grew up in the building. I've lived in SF for 7 years, and never lived anywhere that's like a conventional apartment complex.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

return0 12y ago

What's surprising is how smoothly airbnb has invaded cities. There are relatively very little complaints or damage done, even as neighborhoods are being transformed.

kenko 12y ago

It's really a shame the author doesn't credit Tom Slee, who's done a lot of really great digging into Airbnb's numbers and their claims.

rch 12y ago

Airbnb could get ahead of regulations brewing in some places by asking hosts to declare that they are offering rooms in their primary residence, even if they won't be present during the stay. Property managers and other businesses operating through the site should probably be asked to declare themselves as well.

csense 12y ago

"From a policy perspective, the real issue is whether there are a lot of units that have been removed from the housing market because of short-term rentals...It looks like that’s not a big number yet, but that’s what we need regulation to control so it doesn’t become big." As someone who's never lived in SF (and in fact my somewhat depressed area's just beginning to recover from a ton of vacancies left by the mortgage crisis), it's amazing to me that the local government seems to be contemplating restricting supply and demand, and stifling economic activity like this.