3 ms·

"You can live in your house, raise kids in your house, but maybe it's too dangerous to let you rent it to tourists". Seriously? It looks like the kind of nonse

"You can live in your house, raise kids in your house, but maybe it's too dangerous to let you rent it to tourists". Seriously? It looks like the kind of nonsense governments use when they want to bar you from some freedom isn't it? They put a discouraging administrative burden on you.

josephlord 12y ago
If you own it you probably had it inspected before you bought it and you can make changes to ensure it is safe. You can ensure changes are done safely and get them checked if you want to. You have personal liberty. When you rent it there are minimum standards, renters are often in a weak position to get things fixed and for short term rents the renter is arriving blind with possibly no opportunity to change plans if they recognise there are safety issues even if they have the skills to identify them.
- icebraining 12y ago
  As a renter, I don't mind. For those who do, there's a simple solution: the State can have it inspected at request and grant a certification, so that renters can be assured before committing. Of course, that's if the law was actually intended to protect the renters.
- weddpros 12y ago
  Sure, but do you think this kind of inspection actually works? At least here in France, we hear many times a year in the media about cases where rented places are a total dangerous mess, all in spite of regulation. When people are OK to break the law, they do it big time usually, so adding laws puts the burden on honest people more than dishonest ones... In France, when you want to lend your house, you must have it tested for energetic efficiency. Mine (which I rent) was rated "A", which means best efficiency... Except I have all heaters on max setting in the winter. The administrative burden and high cost is on all of us, with no guarantee, plus you don't sue for higher than expected heating costs.
  - josephlord 12y ago
    But without some inspection scheme would there be more bad or borderline cases? The existence of some outrageous cases doesn't prove that the law is useless. (I know I haven't proved that the law is useful either). Also the failure to have the inspection might be easier to prosecute and show was deliberate than particular safety breaches.
- aianus 12y ago
  If there's anything obviously wrong with the place they'll get shitty ratings and won't make any money. As for non-obvious safety issues I'm willing to increase my chances of injury or death by 0.0001% or whatever by visiting some guy's house without a government inspection and I think most people would agree. Staying at an AirBnB is probably the least dangerous part of any given trip.
RBerenguel 12y ago
I won't contend that it raises the bar from you from doing something. But it also ensures it is safe for the tourist/tenant. I don't see the point of mentioning the "kids" part in your message. I can live in my house, I can keep it incredibly unsafe at that, and raise kids (because they are a kind of legal extension of my person, up until social care is aware of it.) But as soon as you are letting other people in, safety measures improve the quality for all involved. I'd rather visit a city where I knew places I'm likely to stay are safe and checked.
- weddpros 12y ago
  I'll just trust AirBnB's comments of previous renters more than any regulation. Even more so in a bureaucratic country!
prof_hobart 12y ago
When you bought it, you will presumably have checked it out and (at least in my country) had had a survey which will cover basic safety. You will also have every opportunity to fix any dangerous issues whilst living there. It's your active choice to fix, or to ignore, any of these. As a short term renter, you will be agreeing sight unseen to live there for a period of time, and will have no opportunity to fix it during your stay. You have absolutely no control over the safety of the property, and are relying on some third party to provide you with a level of comfort about it.

josephlord 12y ago

If you own it you probably had it inspected before you bought it and you can make changes to ensure it is safe. You can ensure changes are done safely and get them checked if you want to. You have personal liberty. When you rent it there are minimum standards, renters are often in a weak position to get things fixed and for short term rents the renter is arriving blind with possibly no opportunity to change plans if they recognise there are safety issues even if they have the skills to identify them.

icebraining 12y ago
As a renter, I don't mind. For those who do, there's a simple solution: the State can have it inspected at request and grant a certification, so that renters can be assured before committing. Of course, that's if the law was actually intended to protect the renters.
weddpros 12y ago
Sure, but do you think this kind of inspection actually works? At least here in France, we hear many times a year in the media about cases where rented places are a total dangerous mess, all in spite of regulation. When people are OK to break the law, they do it big time usually, so adding laws puts the burden on honest people more than dishonest ones... In France, when you want to lend your house, you must have it tested for energetic efficiency. Mine (which I rent) was rated "A", which means best efficiency... Except I have all heaters on max setting in the winter. The administrative burden and high cost is on all of us, with no guarantee, plus you don't sue for higher than expected heating costs.
- josephlord 12y ago
  But without some inspection scheme would there be more bad or borderline cases? The existence of some outrageous cases doesn't prove that the law is useless. (I know I haven't proved that the law is useful either). Also the failure to have the inspection might be easier to prosecute and show was deliberate than particular safety breaches.
aianus 12y ago
If there's anything obviously wrong with the place they'll get shitty ratings and won't make any money. As for non-obvious safety issues I'm willing to increase my chances of injury or death by 0.0001% or whatever by visiting some guy's house without a government inspection and I think most people would agree. Staying at an AirBnB is probably the least dangerous part of any given trip.

RBerenguel 12y ago

I won't contend that it raises the bar from you from doing something. But it also ensures it is safe for the tourist/tenant. I don't see the point of mentioning the "kids" part in your message. I can live in my house, I can keep it incredibly unsafe at that, and raise kids (because they are a kind of legal extension of my person, up until social care is aware of it.) But as soon as you are letting other people in, safety measures improve the quality for all involved. I'd rather visit a city where I knew places I'm likely to stay are safe and checked.

weddpros 12y ago
I'll just trust AirBnB's comments of previous renters more than any regulation. Even more so in a bureaucratic country!

prof_hobart 12y ago

When you bought it, you will presumably have checked it out and (at least in my country) had had a survey which will cover basic safety. You will also have every opportunity to fix any dangerous issues whilst living there. It's your active choice to fix, or to ignore, any of these. As a short term renter, you will be agreeing sight unseen to live there for a period of time, and will have no opportunity to fix it during your stay. You have absolutely no control over the safety of the property, and are relying on some third party to provide you with a level of comfort about it.