3 ms·

This is actually much worse than it could be, because of this: > • Treating all short-term rental hosts equally by striking the current difference in the la

by gergles 12y ago

This is actually much worse than it could be, because of this: > • Treating all short-term rental hosts equally by striking the current difference in the law between “hosted” and “un-hosted” short-term rentals. Hosted rentals SHOULD have lesser regulation and restrictions. Nobody's going to turn your spare bedroom into a meth lab with you in the apartment. Most of the negative externalities of these types of rentals come when people are able to provide 'unhosted' rentals.

devindotcom 12y ago
That does seem illogical. It's not some technical aspect of the law, is it, like that if you are in the house for X days of the month then any rental you have in the place that month is considered "hosted"? I'm not familiar with the wording of the law, but it could be out of date in that way or something.
jawns 12y ago
I think you're quite right that unhosted rentals are more problematic. Every short-term rental horror story I've heard has involved unhosted rentals. However, from an enforcement standpoint, I can see how difficult it could potentially be to have to make distinctions in each and every case. If a host is there to let you in the door and then leaves, is that a "hosted" rental? Does the host need to be in the apartment 100% of the time you're there to count as a "hosted" rental? What if he steps out for an hour? Does the host need to employ some sort of time tracking system as evidence of his presence? What if a host and a guest dispute the amount of time the host is present?
dpifke 12y ago
The complaint about the current law is that the city has no way to know whether or not the hosts are present. Along with not requiring hosts to provide any sort license number when offering a place for rent, it basically makes the current regulations completely unenforceable.
pbreit 12y ago
Yeah, that one surprised me. Hosted rentals are obviously much, much less risky. Perhaps the enforcement was going to be a problem? Not a great excuse.

by gergles 12y ago

devindotcom 12y ago

That does seem illogical. It's not some technical aspect of the law, is it, like that if you are in the house for X days of the month then any rental you have in the place that month is considered "hosted"? I'm not familiar with the wording of the law, but it could be out of date in that way or something.

jawns 12y ago

I think you're quite right that unhosted rentals are more problematic. Every short-term rental horror story I've heard has involved unhosted rentals. However, from an enforcement standpoint, I can see how difficult it could potentially be to have to make distinctions in each and every case. If a host is there to let you in the door and then leaves, is that a "hosted" rental? Does the host need to be in the apartment 100% of the time you're there to count as a "hosted" rental? What if he steps out for an hour? Does the host need to employ some sort of time tracking system as evidence of his presence? What if a host and a guest dispute the amount of time the host is present?

dpifke 12y ago

The complaint about the current law is that the city has no way to know whether or not the hosts are present. Along with not requiring hosts to provide any sort license number when offering a place for rent, it basically makes the current regulations completely unenforceable.

pbreit 12y ago

Yeah, that one surprised me. Hosted rentals are obviously much, much less risky. Perhaps the enforcement was going to be a problem? Not a great excuse.