Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Landlords Want a Share of Renters' Airbnb Revenue (thestack.com)

Posted by timothy on from the you-bet-they-do dept.

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.

5 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Seems reasonable by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are renting it is not your property.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The right to sublet is often standard in rental agreements.

      The owners are already getting a cut. It's called rent.

    2. Re:Seems reasonable by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Standard? I don't think I've ever signed a lease that didn't explicitly forbid it- its a pain in the ass for the landlord and can lead to difficult 3 way legal issues. I can especially see a landlord not wanting it done for short term leases- a normal sublease is annoying, who to sue when you have a contract with one person who subleased it for 3 days each to a half dozen people via a 3rd party website? No thank you.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:Seems reasonable by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indiana court defined Pi as 3 at some point in time, sure, you can say it set Pi to 3 legally but it did not change the nature of Pi.

      There is no such thing as a 'right' to other people's property. A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else. A right is only a meaningful term in the context of a relationship between an individual and the collective, since the collective cannot be actually punished for oppressing an individual, the laws are set in place to prevent the oppression in the first place. Declaring that in a contract between 2 individuals one of them has specific claims that will be backed by government force and oppression does not create a right, it removes the right of the party, who is on the short end of that stick and it is a stick.

      Once somebody has to give something up because of government oppression to provide it to another party, then it is an entitlement. Just don't pretend you can't understand the difference between a right and an entitlement, very few are that obtuse.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  2. Re:Interesting precedent by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A car owner with a car loan is the wrong comparison. The proper comparison would be with a leased car.