Slashdot Mirror
Landlords Want a Share of Renters' Airbnb Revenue (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A group of leading U.S. property owners, including AvalonBay Communities and Camden Property Trust, have met with lodging rental site Airbnb to discuss ways that they can get a cut of their renters' income. The tech company has faced obstacles to its growth, with residents putting their leases in jeopardy by renting out their places to Airbnb users as temporary accommodation – a form of illegal subletting. A future agreement between owners and tenants could mean renters no longer need to take a risk when letting their apartments on the site.
If you are renting it is not your property.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
And it even got posted to Slashdot.
The editors must be falling down on the job. Well, worse than usual.
This affects more than just landlords and those renters who share out. This also affects renters who DO NOT SHARE out their apartment. Imagine being next to an apartment, trailer, etc. who sublets their rooms/place to other people. Imagine the annoyances.
I think the simple solution is for people to stop the illegal subletting. I think that's probably defined as having a guest stay over more than two days... in some areas.
There's also the issue of how such subletting, or renting out rooms, is running afoul of local laws concerning "hotel taxes" and the like. Although, I think there should be an exemption based on how much income one earns doing such activity.
Go ahead, mod me down.
They already get paid the lease, now they want to be paid even more just because the renters are letting other people crash there for a few days while they are away?
You made your bed, fucking sleep in it.
Can't, it's being sub-let for the next four nights.
They already get a cut, its the rent they are already getting paid.
If they want a 'cut' of the Air BNB revenue than they should have put the property on AirBNB themselves, and dealt with the risk of not having a solid income that doesn't depend on random people booking the property like the person who is currently paying you ... even if no one bothers to rent from AirBNB.
Any land lord that think they get more needs to be taken out back and shot in the face repeatedly, along with the cable and telecom people who pull this same sort of shit.
YOU GOT PAID WHEN YOU RENTED THE PROPERTY THE FIRST TIME ASSHOLES, FUCK OFF.
Charge more for the property or put no-sublet clause in the lease. You made your bed, fucking sleep in it.
Not necessarily.
Suppose rent controls force landlords to rent property out at below-market rates? Is it "fair" that a tenant can then sublet at market rates - even if the lease specifically prevents subletting?
This is not a simple situation.
PS - you come across as someone who has never been responsible for anything in your entire life.
They're almost as bad as lawyers.
In Denmark it is a defacto standard clause in a contract to mention what the renter is allowed to do with the rented. Subletting is a very common clause. Problem solved.
So if you're an Uber driver and you haven't paid off the car you use, is the holder of your car loan entitled to a percentage of your Uber income?
Maybe he does but you're missing the good logic that the post does contain.
If the landlord doesn't want the place rented out then that should be in the lease. (similar issue... if the short term sublet is illegal it's illegal)
If it is in the lease / illegal and the tenant does it anyway? They are in violation of the lease / law and should be dealt with accordingly. There is no reason to be exploring different methods here. The legal and practical means are there to deal with this situation. All the major corporate landlords involved in this are trying to do is double dip.
If landlords want a portion of the airbnb income, then renters should not have to pay rent for the time that they are out of town or at work, etc.
Exactly.
My bet is the landlords think they have a way to bypass the rent control by negotiating a cut of the Air B&B revenue with Air B&B and throwing their tenants under the bus when the government finally figures out what's going on, and comes to crack down on the illegal sublets.
They should put clauses in their leases banning subletting/AirBnB. Do that and then anyone who violates it can be evicted for breaching the lease.
This is Slashdot, so we need analogies.
Say I have a KVM Linode, and then "WebBnB" wants an LXC container on my Linode, and they're running Apache in their container, and serving up several VirtualHost websites for their customers. WebBnB needs to charge their customers for the websites, so I can charge them, and Linode can charge me extra. And we all take a cut, thereby making WebBnB the stupidest and most expensive webhosting company ever, so the customers leave 'em and start doing business directly with Linode. Problem solved.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Why all the hostility? They rent at market rates for single family use as is (which is likely unfurnished). Its very possible that they're only legally allowed to rent in that way:
1. Government subsided housing
2. Limited Accessibility (Hosuing Coops)
3. Occupant Security / Strata restrictions (Appartments/Condos)
Ultimately, its a boring old contract law problem, you either have the right to sublet, or you don't. If there are restrictions on sublets, the landlord can evict / negotiate whatever share they see fit (say 100%). If (and in all likelihood you don't) have rights to sublet without impunity, the landlord can't and shouldn't have the right to 'double dip' as you perceive it.
Bye!
What I see, is the double dip, but I do see some reasoning for it. Standard is no subleasing, that's fine. But there are tenants that are doing it in breach of the lease. Option A (currently the only real option): remove the tenant and start over in filling the space. This costs money and is not optimal, this is why they don't go this way most of the time. What this does is create Option B: allow the subleasing with revenue sharing. As the property owner is taking more risk by trusting that the original lessee is holding the same quality standards as they are in finding the sub-lessee, but does not know for sure, they want protection from the possible additional costs they may incur as a result. There is an Option C in all of this: have both a no sub and a sub agreement, with the sub agreement having a much higher upfront cost to cover the extra risk, but how many people are going to pay the extra without knowing for sure they are going to see money coming in.
I am a landlord, of four one-bedroom apartments, and all of my leases explicitly disallow subletting. Numerous posters, with zero stated understanding of any kind of real estate practice, seem to think that subletting is "illegal" if it's disallowed in their lease. Someone is not going to go to jail, or have to deal with the cops, for breaking a provision in a lease I wrote. They may get evicted, which could involve the cops, but that's an eviction. Breaking the agreement isn't going to have legal consequences, past the *potential* eviction, unless I chose to try and have a judge pass a judgement (and then good luck on enforcing this judgement.)
Plus, this 100% depends on the lease. I can write a lease which gives full authority to sublet, one that disallows subletting, or one that gives me a percentage of the sublet. Unless we read the lease, there is no reason to try and pass any kind of informed judgement on the situation.
The entire process I described to you, having a judge pass judgement against someone, and then sending that person to collections (or garnishing their wages) is a big, big, pain. Plus, it's going to destroy the relationship with the renter. The judge is going to award you probably all the income they made, since they were not authorized to resell your place, and maybe 3x as much for damages. That's still not worth your time, unless you like spending time in court or need to be there anyways. Even then, the tenant isn't going to be able to pay, and collections won't be able to get it out of them...
It's like 1000x easier if you have an agreement in place with airbnb.com, as a property owner, to automatically get a cut of the short term rental on your place. Especially if you own a gigantic tower in New York City, as opposed to four rinky dinky apartments in Albuquerque, New Mexico (like I do.) You can negotiate with airbnb.com ONCE for your entire property (if you have a standard subletting clause, which everyone is under) as opposed to getting a judge to offer a judgement against every single person, who is going to end their lease at that point.
The only reason this is even news is because most people have no idea about how rental property actually works. This isn't news - it's called good business.
why should they care if the tenant is making some money? if they do care so much, why not offer the apartment as an airbnb stay location themselves? looks like they want to get paid AND not have the hassle of having to manage it - in that case, does it make the renter an employee and are they entitled to payment?
Suppose rent controls force landlords to rent property out at below-market rates? Is it "fair" that a tenant can then sublet at market rates - even if the lease specifically prevents subletting?
Second things first: If subletting is prohibited, there is no AirBnB income.
If rent control forces landlords to limit their rates, then how can tenants rent (through AirBnB) at higher rates? Rent control is rent control. So why can AirBnB break the rules?
Have gnu, will travel.
Hard to take someone seriously who seems to have a lot of hatred issues.
Let us all know how you feel about subletting, when you actually own a property that someone rents from you.
I object to the description of Airbnb as "illegal subletting". I am not aware of any (US) jurisdictions in which subletting is against the law.
Why does this surprise anyone? They want to double dip because they dont want to take the risk of having their property all Air BNB setup.
Dear landlord..... go fuck yourself.... And fix the damn stair railing you lazy bastard.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm not getting into the whole subletting thing, as I know it's a hairy mess in some places, but I don't think a weekend stay or other short time really qualifies for what I'd call a sublet.
On the other hand, violating your lease, is definitely a problem, even if you feel it's unfair.
Now as to the landlords/property owners wanting a cut, that's pretty bogus and greedy.
Though I would find having the renter pay obtain an appropriate insurance before hand to cover things if the AirBnB 'visitor' messed something up totally reasonable.
If landlords want a portion of the airbnb income, then renters should not have to pay rent for the time that they are out of town or at work, etc.
Okay, if you allow the landlords to sublet your apartment while you are out of town, maybe they would be okay with it..
Oh, you want exclusive access to your apartment while you are out of town or at work too... Hmm, that'll cost you..... RENT!
You make good points, and I understand a subletting fee for a true sublet (background checks, rental histories, etc). But these management companies aren't doing any of that for an AirBnB rental, AirBnB is. I have paid for use of the property. AirBNB is managing the service. If there's damage, AirBnB is supposed to cover the costs to repair it. Basically they're demanding a cut of the revenue for doing _nothing_.
I know the management companies will say there more traffic, wear and tear, etc. I'm fine with them banning it for just that reason. And I'm sure they'll say their using this money to hire more staff, security, etc but having lived in NYC for years, including a few gigantic towers, they're not going to do any of that. They just see cash and are diving after it.
The sharing/gig economic model assumes that someone owns something of economic value that is not already 100% utilized, be it an automobile, a domicile, labor, or what-have-you. If you want to sell use of something you don't own, you either need to stay under the radar of the owner, or have an agreement giving you the right to make the sale.
A comment snarks about whether adding a baby counts as sharing. In the US, usually no, unless you live in a community whose covenant limits permanent residents to 55-and-over.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I don;t think hotels are subject to rent control for the rates they charge customers are they?
This whole article can be boiled down to "We want a piece of the action".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
In related news...
CompStak wants a share of PlayStation revenues.
CompStak is the CRE (Commercial Real Estate) company that leases the 2207 Bridgepointe Pkwy, San Mateo, CA building to Sony Entertainment for the production of software for the Sony PlayStation, including their FreeBSD based operating systems development.
They are upset that their renters are making money through their least of their property, and have decided they want a cut of the revenues that result from the business done by their lessees.
Just like the landlords of properties their lessees are occasionally renting out via Airbnb.
Oh wait.
Now both demands seem ridiculous...
Hotels and apartments are two completely separate classes of business under most zoning laws. So if it's an apartment, you can't run a one room hotel out of it.
Have gnu, will travel.
Suppose rent controls force landlords to rent property out at below-market rates? Is it "fair" that a tenant can then sublet at market rates
Yes. If your government forces you to sell a 1 lb nugget of gold for 1 cent, the buyer can resell it for $1000000, and owes you nothing. If I sold you a share of Apple for $1 and you resold it 2 years later for $1000, you owe me nothing. That is how buying and selling works. You don't come back crying that somebody made profit "unfairly" because you could have made that profit in your imagination.
God dammit, that's why you calculate your daily rent, and optionally tack on profit. You don't pay your rent that day, some random stranger does. To you, so you can turn it over to the property owner.
If subletting is not in the contract, you lose those days. If it is allowable, and you can't AirBnb it, you have to pay the rent.
Finally, let me restate your post. All rentees shall renegotiate their contracts for a per diem scale instead of monthly. When you don't live there, you don't pay. What will a landlord do then?
Rent your place to a stranger when you aren't there. That would happen. How do they know? Because you can't just pay what you feel like at the end if the month, and all kinds if additional contractual things.
Better that you charge enough to cover the fee, because you won't like the alternative. If you don't like that, become a real estate mogul and do business your way.
News at 11.
If landlords want a portion of the airbnb income, then renters should not have to pay rent for the time that they are out of town or at work, etc.
Sounds reasonable. They can pay a storage fee instead for those times. At 110% of the rental rate to account for the additional overhead.
If you are renting it is not your property.
Irrelevant, the landlords have already been paid for the use of that property for that time period. If they have already been paid that month their contract has been fulfilled and they are entitled to NOTHING. If the rent is in arrears that is a different story.
It would be like leasing a van, loaning it to your brother for a weekend so he can move a sofa and your brother pays you $40 for gas and now the leasing company shows up with their hand out demanding $30 of that gas money ... just because.