5 ms·
If you own a property (or have the owner's permission), why does it matter whether you actually live in it or rent it out to other people? Should we be prohibit
by kijin 12y ago
If you own a property (or have the owner's permission), why does it matter whether you actually live in it or rent it out to other people? Should we be prohibited from lending our physical books to other people just because publishers would rather we didn't?
Why does it matter who you rent out your property to? Why does it matter whether you rent it out for 30 days a year or 300 days a year? Why does it matter whether you rent it out for 30 days to one person or one day each to 30 people? The last one is especially arbitrary, and the only reason it means anything at all is because the hotel industry uses it as a threshold for market segmentation.
Is it safety that matters? If so, let's drop all the "up to X days" bullshit and actually focus on safety. How can we check whether an AirBnB listing is "safe", whatever that means in this context, how do we compensate victims of "unsafe" listings, and how do we come up with a good incentive structure to encourage "safe" listings and weed out "unsafe" ones?
Is it taxation that matters? Of course people should pay taxes on all of their income. In fact, AirBnB income should be easier to track down than the proceeds from that MacBook you just sold on Craigslist. AirBnB keeps excellent records of all of your income (and their fees), after all. Then it's just a matter of getting those records into the hands of the IRS.
Is it zoning that matters? If so, why do we care about zoning at all? Over the last few decades, the only thing that zoning achieved in the United States is the complete segragation of residential areas from all other areas of modern life, so that everyone needs to drive a dozen miles to work and another dozen miles to get their groceries. Many cities are now beginning to toy with the idea of vibrant mixed zones, where people can live, work, shop, and play all within easy walking or cycling distances. A hostel next door suddenly doesn't seem like a bad idea after all. (Oh, it's not properly managed and people are shooting crack up their arms in the backyard? Well, that's a problem with poor management, not a problem with the mere fact that it's a hostel. Would you ban houses with basements because some basements have meth labs in them?)
So I refuse to believe that the right answer has anything to do with how long you should be able to rent out a property. It's your property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it within reasonable bounds (like paying taxes and keeping your property safe for other users).
As long as we keep focusing on peripheral issues that are framed by existing business models with conflicts of interest, we'll never get to ask the really pressing questions, such as reasonable safety and insurance standards for small-time landlords.
And yes, I agree with you that AirBnB's reactive (as opposed to proactive) attitude toward this issue isn't helping, either.
/rant
- Tomte 12y ago> Should we be prohibited from lending our physical books to other people just because publishers would rather we didn't? No, but I haven't seen examples of negative externalities in that case.
- kijin 12y agoWell, then find a way to make people pay for those externalities if and when they occur. What I'm against is the assumption that renting out your home should be illegal by default, i.e. illegal unless you meet a bunch of conditions. This makes it difficult to ask how we might target specific instances of negative externality. IMO, when it comes to what you can do with your own property, the assumption should be legal by default, i.e. legal except when a specific way of using your property has demonstrable negative externalities, and even in that case, only illegal to the extent to which your actions cause such externalities. Illegal-by-default is anathema to innovation, because it places a buden on innovators to demonstrate that they are causing no harm. It's like a subtler version of guilty-until-proven-innocent.
- Tomte 12y ago> IMO, when it comes to what you can do with your own property, the assumption should be legal by default It is. You may do almost anything with your property. It just happens that renting out is one of the things regulated because of demonstrated negative externalities. > It's like a subtler version of guilty-until-proven-innocent. That principle only applies to criminal law.
- kijin 12y ago> It's like a subtler version of guilty-until-proven-innocent. > That principle only applies to criminal law. Of course you're right, literally. But only literally. Which part of the word "like" do you not understand? Is it perfectly fine to treat people with a G-U-P-I attitude as long as you don't do it in the context of criminal law? What about Google canceling your Adsense account for reasons known only to them and refusing to talk with you at all? What about PayPal freezing random charities' accounts with no recourse other than shaming them on reddit? If that's okay, may I accuse you of killing my cat, just because you can't show me any proof that you didn't?