10 ms·
San Francisco Legalizes, Regulates Airbnb with 7-4 Vote, Lots of Amendments
- LordHumungous 12y agoAirbnb is emblematic of the new "disrupt everything and fuck the consequences" economy. Too bad more landlords don't lay a smackdown on tenants who use their apartment as a hotel.
- apaprocki 12y agoI could see landlords being lax because they might not be present or live in the building and have no sense of what is going on. In my building in NYC, renting your condo via Airbnb, VRBO, whatever is a $1,000/day fine.
- baddox 12y agoPeople always talk about how AirBnb is ignoring consequences. But other than a very few high-profile cases, I haven't seen much evidence of these supposed consequences.
- MRSallee 12y ago"San Francisco legalizes Airbnb" Uh, was it illegal before?
- adamnemecek 12y agoNot illegal but not legal.
- MRSallee 12y agoLike ham sandwiches? unregulated ≠ illegal
- adamnemecek 12y agoThey fall in a grey area if anything.
- MRSallee 12y agoYes, like ham sandwiches, since the Board of Supervisors has not yet passed a law to legalize them.
- aikah 12y agoWell,obviously if a laboratory creates a new drug,and that drug is not approved by the FDA,that drug is illegal. The problem with Airbnb business,is that Airbnb soclializes the risk.Airbnb doesnt risk anything,hosts do.Of course it is in the interest of Airbnb to make sure its users risk the minimum.But Airbnb as a plateform is legal.Airbnb can argue it's just like Ebay or Paypal. All these "disruption" plateforms Airbnb,Kickstarter,Uber and such,they pretty much work the same way.They are the new middlemen,that bypass former middlemen,collect a fee and wash their hand of any wrong doing when things turn south. My only problem is with Airbnb, it can really drive prices up for long-term renters,that have others things to do than running illegal hotels.
- MRSallee 12y ago> The problem with Airbnb business,is that Airbnb soclializes the risk.Airbnb doesnt risk anything,hosts do. Like Craigslist. And Ebay. And Etsy. And all these other fantastic platforms that let people generate money / increase productivity without the old gate keepers getting in the way. Not a new problem, and one that many consumers -- like me -- are happy to deal with versus the alternative.
- CaptainZapp 12y agoI'd argue that being ripped off a couple hundred $ on an auction platform, or an e-commerce site is in a somewhat different category than getting your apartment ransacked by speed freaks, or you being attacked by a mentally volatile driver with a hammer.
- 12y ago
- rosser 12y agoBut it wasn't unregulated. It was just poorly regulated. You could legally AirBnB your place by getting a "conditional-use permit" and notifying all your neighbors.
- hyperbovine 12y agoHam sandwiches are regulated, by multiple federal agencies no less: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/10/hillary-clinton/a-legitimate-beef-with-ham-sandwich-regulations/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/...
- bmelton 12y ago"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is the principle of law under which our citizenry exists, FWIW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidd...
- hnal943 12y agoRight, but it's forbidden to run an unlicensed hotel.
- bmelton 12y agoI was simply commenting on the semantic nature of "it wasn't illegal, but it wasn't legal." That said, "unlicensed hotel" is a quandary that has been argued a thousand times over. A hotel and a boarding house are legally distinct. Legally speaking, hotels have separate rooms for guests which is distinct from subletting either a single room as well as from subletting the entirety of the property. Legally speaking, an AirBNB rental most closely correlates to a "lodging house", which does not provide food for its guests, which is a requirement for a hotel, or inn (per Black's, anyway). Legally speaking, what we are likely talking about is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all AirBNB rentals that are now being lumped together into a single term, which only muddies the argument even further. The idea that a sublet, lodging house, or boarding house is "close enough" to a hotel to be considered under the purview of hotel licensure is ... optimistic, and to me, smacks of the state's unwillingness to let some revenue go uncaptured. But, that's just my opinion, and I appreciate that the argument is nuanced, and there are potentially safety concerns as well.
- mikeash 12y agoI think that weird semantic nature is because there's more than one entity involved here. AirBnB is just a platform. It is, by itself, legal. However, virtually everyone who uses AirBnB uses it illegally. Thus, it's not illegal (because AirBnB the service is not forbidden) but it's not legal (because it's hard to use the service without breaking the law, and in practice almost nobody does what's required).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ubernostrum 12y agoThe most common situation seems to be one where it is legal for Airbnb, the business, to exist and do what it does, but where the majority of the people listing their places to rent on it are violating some law/regulation or clause of their lease by doing so. Sort of like how running a user-generated content site is legal, but people who upload movies/albums/etc. to it in violation of copyright are on the wrong side of the law.
- hnal943 12y agoIt's illegal to run a hotel without a license, yes.
- aestra 12y agoShort term rentals have been illegal in San Fran since (I believe) the 80s. Running a hotel without paying hotel taxes and following other regulations is generally illegal. It surely is also is against local zoning regulations. I think zoning regulations are generally a good idea but in practice they are often harmful (except in older downtown areas which are generally friendly to mixed use).
- cheepin 12y agoNow that it's legal, do you think they will abide by the regulations, or is it just a symbolic move that will have an intangible effect on the actual business? It's hard to tell if a company operating largely outside the law will go inside of it now that it is just an inconvenience to comply instead of impossible.
- ojbyrne 12y agoPresumably regulating them is the first step towards fining them for non-compliance.
- loteck 12y agoThese regulations appear to mostly apply to the individuals who choose to rent out their property. Airbnb itself dodged the one big item that would have impacted them directly, which was an idea that Airbnb should be on the hook for $25 million in "back taxes."
- MichaelApproved 12y ago> Airbnb itself dodged the one big item that would have impacted them directly, which was an idea that Airbnb should be on the hook for $25 million in "back taxes." Though, I'm sure they didn't want to pay $25 million, I doubt it was as important as some of the other regulations they were hoping to avoid. A one time fine of $25 million isn't as important as a law that would've prevented any type of rental. That would've been more existential. Also, the $25 million was proposed to be paid by Airbnb and other similar companies. They weren't on the hook for the entire amount, though, it probably would have been most of the amount. But that's off track from my point that $25 million isn't the #1 issue they were worried about.
- aikah 12y agopretty amazing any administration would sit on it.Yes it would be complicated to collect but even if it takes 5 years,it's still $25 millions.
- pyrophane 12y agoThey should be requiring that Airbnb help them enforce it. Airbnb could easily require you to input a permit number when you create a listing then keep track of the number of days you are renting without a host present in order to make sure you don't go over it. They should also be reporting your rental income to the state for tax purposes.
- pyrophane 12y agoI live in NYC and think that something like this here would only solve one of the major problems we have with Airbnb. If it is enforced, the 90-day cap should be enough to keep apartments from being taken off the market during a housing crisis so they can be used as full-time hotels. That is really important, because it is the more affordable apartments that are most vulnerable to this, since they don't usually have a doorman or a landlord that is likely to care that much. The problem it doesn't solve, however, is the fact that hotel guests shouldn't be staying in apartment buildings unattended by a host anyway. It creates terrible problems for people who are actually trying to live there, since Airbnb guests will treat your building like a hotel. I would much prefer that a host always be required to be present if the rental in question is an apartment.
- bradleyjg 12y agoIt doesn't sound like they have a realistic plan to enforce the 90 day limit. This strange right of action for 5 year old non-profits, that can only seek an injunction and can only go after some subset of violators does not seem like it will be very useful. They should have created a private right of action sounding in nuisance, with damages available, and open to any affected party. And maybe a loser pays provision.
- pyrophane 12y agoThat is a shame. We technically already have a law here banning short-term subleasing for under 30-days if the tenant isn't present, which makes the vast majority of these full-time Airbnb hotels illegal. The only problem is that no one is enforcing it, so it is barely better than having no law at all.
- apaprocki 12y agoAnd it's worth mentioning that even if the tenant is present, condo/co-op boards are free to ban the practice and I would be shocked if most don't -- we do. There are practically no single residential dwellings in NYC -- anything in a multiple dwelling building is subject to the rules put forth by the condo/co-op board.
- staunch 12y ago"Airbnb allowed" should be a feature of rental properties the way "Pets allowed" is. It will attract people who want to be able to use Airbnb and repel those who don't want the problems it brings.
- rtpg 12y agothat already exists (at least in the inverse). It's called a no-subletting clause.
- hkmurakami 12y agoI don't know the details, but I learned last week when I was in LA that LA allows "short term vacation rentals" that I believe are distinct from subletting. So I believe that these two are not necessarily the same, depending on the city's legalese.
- apaprocki 12y agoFor example, NYC has "fixed" the law to be very clear. "What the Law Says -- Contrary to what many may think, New York laws about short term rentals are pretty clear, thanks to a new law went into affect in 2011. "Under the New York State multiple dwelling law, a residential multiple dwelling can only be used for what is termed 'permanent resident purposes,'" explains attorney Robert Braverman. "What that means under the statute is that it has to be occupied by the same person or family for 30 or more consecutive days." So anything less than 30 days, no matter how you swing it, is violating the law, unless of course, the place is zoned to be a hotel or hostel."[0] [0]: http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/25/an_introduction_to_new_yorks_short_term_rental_laws.php http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/25/an_introduction_to_...
- pbreit 12y agoOr unless owner/tenant is present? Or unless price=cost?
- pessimizer 12y ago
- forrestthewoods 12y agoGod reading about the San Fran housing market just makes me angry. Only 376k housing units? WTF! And 172k of them are rent controlled? WTF! What a clusterfuck.
- pyrophane 12y agoAnd then there are places like Mountain View and Cupertino that were happy to have companies headquarter there but then refused to allow new housing to be built for the workers, putting even more pressure on SF to pick up the slack. I was not aware the numbers were that bleak. Is that total housing units or just rental units?
- jackowayed 12y agoLooks like total units: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.... Though I was actually surprised it was so high. That's units, not bedrooms, and it's only a city of ~800k people. I guess there's a lot of 1-person households to bring down the average despite all the families and twenty-somethings in 2-4 bedroom units with at least as many inhabitants as bedrooms.
- ulfw 12y agoWell, no one forced said companies to set ground there. Especially when a ton of their employees don't even want to live near Mountain View, Cupertino or Menlo Park and thus have to be bused for an hour+ from SF. Jus' saying ;)
- raverbashing 12y agoThis The US is vast, but of course, let's cram all the technology workers in a tight corner of a bay and densify that to the max. Grow Out. Of course, SF is a "city", not the kind of city that's part of an urban sprawl like the others. Maybe that's what other cities should start doing. That and quality public transport (not only Google Bus)
- shouldbeworking 12y agoTop comment on the page: > can there be legislation for airbnb to get a new logo? http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/07/san-francisco-airbnb/?fb_comment_id=fbc_773913802650953_773938202648513_773938202648513 http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/07/san-francisco-airbnb/?fb_co...
- Sammi 12y agoIs that some joke or reference that I'm not getting?
- misterbwong 12y agoThis has zero relevance to the topic but, yes, there is a reference you're missing. When AirBnB redesigned their logo, there was an internet uproar (read: slow news week and some tweets about it) about how ugly the new logo was/is.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- geebee 12y agoI think the board of supes missed an incredible opportunity here to enforce code. One problem with many of SF's downstairs "in-law" units, in my opinion, is that they are almost always built without permits and in violation of building codes. This can be a big deal - having done a downstairs remodel recently with proper permits, I know the expense but also the value of licensed electrical and plumbing work, proper structural engineering, and firewalls to prevent the inferno that results from faulty wiring from spreading to the bedroom next door. My take on it is this -the government has the right to inspect hotel rooms. I'd say if you want to list your home on airbnb and turn it into a commercial property, you probably should have to accept that the govt will enforce proper safety, environmental, and structural regulations like it would for a hotel room, without the same privacy issues we'd extend to someone's home.
- w4 12y ago>I'd say if you want to list your home on airbnb and turn it into a commercial property, you probably should have to accept that the govt will enforce proper safety, environmental, and structural regulations like it would for a hotel room, without the same privacy issues we'd extend to someone's home. I don't know about California, but in Massachusetts short term rental activity is explicitly residential, and not commercial, per existing case law. That may be why they didn't do what you suggest.
- geebee 12y agoNo idea, but that is a good point. I think that the internet has dramatically changed the nature of short term rentals. I don't think that regulations have become irrelevant - in some ways they are more relevant than ever - but they do need to adapt. Prior to the internet, it was difficult enough to get word out and so forth about a spare room that short term rentals could be regulated largely as an afterthought. Now, they're a multi-billion dollar industry. There may be a middle ground we need to find, something between "government out of my private home" and surprise inspections of a hotel. But things like unpermitted wiring, lead paint, uninspected furnaces, the absence of carbon monoxide alarms… while these things are actually illegal in residential units, I think the game really does change when you start to expose potentially hundreds of people to this over the course of a year through commercial use of a property.
- chuckcode 12y agoPretty clear that mostly what SF cares about is the tax revenue. That is the only part that is centralized and Airbnb has to provide. Everything else is self reported by the hosts which means that maybe the city will lean on them if the neighbors or landlords complain. Pretty smart of Airbnb to pay off the city and avoid responsibility for anything else. This is definitely a scalable business model if they can get other cities to buy into the same idea.