Slashdot Mirror
Airbnb To Hand Over Data On 124 Hosts To New York Attorney General
Peer-to-peer lodging service Airbnb has agreed to hand over data on 124 of its hosts in New York as part of an investigation by the state's Attorney General into the operation of illegal hotels. The AG first requested data for almost all of Airbnb's hosts in the state, but after "legal wrangling," that number was whittled down to the current 124. The data in question will be unredacted personal information, meaning names and addresses. In a blog post, Airbnb's David Hantman said, "nothing about these hosting profiles suggests [the Attorney General] is after anyone but individuals who may be flagrantly misusing our platform." Airbnb is confident that the targets of this request are hosts considered to be "bad actors," but they don't explain what classifies somebody as a "bad actor."
It's whoever we say and whoever doesn't have the means to buy us.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Every time I see a story like this or the problems Tesla has in NY, I can't help but think of the "New York is open for business" commercials flooded on the TV news channels. One of the most taxed and regulated states in the nation claiming to be business friendly.
Fuck Noo Yawk.
depends on the situation. There is government being overly strict/arseholes, then there is government doing what it is supposed to do, which is ensuring hotels are all following the regulations required for hotels. If they are doing the former then it sucks, but I suspect it is the later they are chasing. I personally find it hard to fault them if what they are doing is chasing people that are blatantly ignoring the laws for insurance, health and safety etc when it comes to hotel accommodation.
I know of one actual Bed and Breakfast that takes in normal clients through one set of ads, and runs other ads in BDSM magazines and such and serves as a dungeon for that clientel. They apparently rely on not scheduling people who don't know what's in the basement at the same time as those who do or something like that - maybe weekends are for whipsters. Is it possible this counts as a "bad actor"?
Or what about people who are subletting property they only rent, against their rental agreement? Not that that's right, but I could certainly see the New York state authorities focusing only on those cases and ignoring a lot of owner landlords who rent out unsafe property, or worse, the ones who use goons to frighten or actually beat people who are protected from price increases by rent control, to force them to break their leases and free the property to be rented at a higher rate. Leaning on little old ladies is a pretty blatent kind of 'bad acting", but is it even on the radar in this case, or is it all about getting the low hanging fruit of renters who generally can't afford lawyers rather than landlords who can?.
Who is John Cabal?
It isn't innovation to simply ignore local accommodation laws. If ignoring the law is innovation then I think a lot of people would like their prison sentences reduced as after all they were just innovating.
I believe it's essentially about someone running what is essentially a hotel without paying the taxes that hotels are supposed to pay.
See http://www.balloon-juice.com/2...
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
Just because you think a law is "silly" does not mean that it is. All you are doing is giving a newcomer a financial advantage over established businesses. So when the new business harms the old business and can not handle the additional taxes and regulations when they are imposed you have less supply not more.
No - there are always definitly easy to spot bad actors on such platforms. These can range from stupid assholes who want to rent out their garbage collection room, people who are acting like they ren something out in private, but in reality operate a full-scale business circumventing regulations and possibly taxes.
It seems that in NY there are 10000s of hosts. Figuring out the most criminal 1% of these has nothing to do with killing innovation but more wit doing a service to the customers (reputation for the hosts and safety for the customers).
Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel?
As soon as money changes hands it is no longer a "private arrangement". When you charge for a place to stay you are now a hotel unless it is on a month to month basis then you have a roommate. If you are providing the same service as a hotel you are operating a hotel. It is not a "public safety" issue.
For example, someone renting an apartment but never living there and only renting short term through Airbnb is a bad actor. First, they are running a one room hotel with lower regulatory costs than a hotel. Second they are probably doing it against the lease. Third, they have little incentive to ensure that their tenants are following noise restrictions. Fourth, they are removing a rental apartment from a probably already tight rental market.
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think they're doing this from a perspective of public safety, I think we'd just have to disagree.
YES I do think they should abide by the same rules as in order for insurance to be valid and cover you they must also be following the rules. This is the reason I would never use Uber here in Australia as while an accident is unlikely I like knowing I am insured against such an event and in most Uber drivers sharing you are definitely NOT covered. Similiarly if I am paying for accommodation I want to know that they are meeting minimum health and safety requirements and also have appropriate insurance.
People actually want hotels and motels regulated. A few reasons I can think of:
1. Most people don't want a motel to pop up next door. By that I mean they don't want you renting out your house in the neighborhood to random people. Ask a few homeowners what they think about someone turning their neighbors house into a rental (and that's medium term).
2. Most people don't want an actual motel within a mile or more of them. Again, it represents passers through. Also motels are notorious for crime and housing some unfavorable types, depending on the location, scale, and many other factors. But people fear the worst.
Okay, that's all I could come up with.
There are some who rent out a room in their home occasionally. With proper regulation that should be allowed. There are others who rent apartments specifically to rent out as a short term rental. These are the ones that need to comply with the complete hotel rules. Registered bed and breakfasts have to comply with ruled why shouldn't Airbnb poster have to comply with those regulations as well?
You're saying that if I make arrangements with someone to allow them to stay in a spare room and they give me $30 a night, I need to adhere to all regulations a full fledged hotel would have to.
Are you paying taxes on the income? Do you have adequate parking for that tenant?
Will you say a different story when someone is burned to death because there was no fire alarm system which a hotel is required to have but a private residence is not?
There are two different scenarios we are talking about; spare room rental and short term apartment sublet. The former should be allowed with minimal regulation. The latter needs to be watched very closely.
What innovation? Renting out your room or apartment is not new or innovative. Connecting supply and demand using the Internet is not new or innovative. What's innovative about AirBnB and Uber and the likes is figuring out how to do something blatantly illegal to gain a competitive advantage over legitimate businesses that do follow rules and regulations (which in many cases exist for very good reasons), without getting immediately shut down.
Will you say a different story when someone is burned to death because there was no fire alarm system which a hotel is required to have but a private residence is not?
That's just a ridiculous argument. Apartment buildings are required to maintain fire alarm systems, have fire escapes, fire extinguishers, etc.
Unless you are saying the requirements for a hotel are safer, in which case why not regulate so that everyone can live in a fire safe dwelling?
This summary is inaccurate - it is a "public safety" issue. In the Nigel Warren case where he rented out his room on Airbnb in NYC, the judge levied a fine of fine of $2,400 after ruling that they were operating an unlicensed hotel.
The law on which the decision was based, Bill S6873B-2009 states:-
I.e. The reasoning given for the law was to protect public safety, specifically to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes.
During the last year of negotiations with the NY AG (Eric Schneiderman), AirBnB offered to remit taxes on the hosts' behalf, as they have done in other markets (such as San Francisco). The AG rejected this proposal. Why? Because it's not about taxes, it's about killing any possible competition the large hotels in NYC face. In fact, Schneiderman has surrounded himself with people who have heavy ties to the hotel industry, and has accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from hotel lobbies.
It's inconvenient, but it's true. The NY State government's actions are, yet again, predatory and anticompetitive.
Unless you are saying the requirements for a hotel are safer, in which case why not regulate so that everyone can live in a fire safe dwelling?
The requirements for a hotel should be stricter. If you are renting a room for the night, you should not have to check the batteries in the fire alarm. If you have a three year lease on an apartment, it is reasonable for that to be your responsibility, rather than the landlords.
If that would be true, then lobyists who manage to reduce the competition by 1% probably would not be worth their money.
I think you may have just hit on the next advertising masterpiece:
I expect a roach free room and a mechanically sound taxi.
For everyone else, there's Lyft and AirBNB.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Vast generalization here (I'm not a legal scholar)- but it looks like laws have been put in place to 1) encourage something viewed as good by the legislature or 2) discourage something viewed as bad by the legislature. What is viewed as "good" or "bad" is up to the legislator, the folks that the elected the legislator, the folks that the legislator represents, and most important to our current system of campaign finance, the folks that pay for the legislator's campaign. Airbnb is ostensibly a mechanism to allow people to profit from use underutilized space. Unfortunately some of the underutilized space is contained in clauses in lease agreements that the Airbnb hosts chose to ignore.
The hotel laws were put in place because of abuses. Rent control was put in place because of abuses and to encourage affordable housing. The "bad actors" are those that are abusing the system at the potential risk to their customers- and they are customers, not guests. Because of the immense amount of money moving around, there will be abuses and bargains. Leave it up to a company to determine the bad actors, and they will invariably call out those that pose the greatest risk- and since it is a profit driven company, risk is about money, with no consideration given to public welfare (ostensibly the government's arena).
It has EVERYTHING to do with killing innovation. Think about it for a second, who benefits?
The (probably few) customers who don't get scammed by shady "hosts". The neighbors who don't have to put up with living next to a de-facto hotel which the property is almost certainly not zoned for. The taxing authorities and by extension the local citizens who are probably not receiving the benefits of tax revenue they would otherwise receive. The normal hotels and their employees who lose revenue they likely otherwise would have received.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it is necessarily good. I don't have a problem with Air Bnb and I actually do wish them the best of luck but just because they think their product is "innovative" doesn't automatically mean it is a good idea. I can see potential problems with the service that are serious and need to be addressed in a more adult way than screaming "KILLING INNOVATION" to anyone who will listen.
124 "Bed n Breakfasts" may make up 1% of the number of hosts, but that is not the same as 1% of the market share.
It stopped being a private arrangement when it started being facilitated by a 3rd party.
Better than uber, in this situation these people can easily squat and the home owner would have to go through the full eviction process ... Which means in some locations that you can't have them removed for at least 90 days! And no, changing the locks while they are out isn't legal either.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
OK, but in both cases you need a fire alarm, right? And in neither case is someone legally allowed to disable the alarm, right?
I still don't see any difference.
From the post you're replying to:
The requirements for a hotel should be stricter. If you are renting a room for the night, you should not have to check the batteries in the fire alarm. If you have a three year lease on an apartment, it is reasonable for that to be your responsibility, rather than the landlords.
Add to that that hotels have mandatory annual inspections, with a fire inspector who walks through and checks all of the alarms and extinguishers. You don't do that in your apartment, I'm sure, and yet it's something a hotel tenant relies on.
People forget that there is another side here - the NYC resident. Consider that there's likely several people within 20 feet of me at any given time - this is the reality of big city living.
What AirBnB means to me is a diminished quality of life.
It means "guests" rolling in at 2am, feeling the need to open and close every door and cupboard (and waking up my household). Ringing my bell accidentally at all hours. Using AirBnB to find one-night party space. Smoking everywhere.
This is all from one apartment directly above me. If I complain to NYC, it means that they're sued to death and evicted (which I'm sorely tempted to do, but the punishment is very harsh). If I don't, I have to live in a noisier, less enjoyable circumstance.
And yes, I've taken the time to ask the folks upstairs to be more considerate. Their response? "It's our right", even though it's against the law.
AirBnB sucks.
It can be argued that bylaws and residential restrictions are a form of HOA.. It really should be "if you want to do whatever you want with your own property, live out in the country" but even in the country, there are rules about what you can and can't do. As long as you live near other people and services, there are valid restrictions about what you can and can't do with your private property. Suck it up, buttercup.