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.

Comments

Seems reasonable

[plopez]

If you are renting it is not your property.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not that simple you have rights as a renter. You may not have the right to sublet however.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to sublet is often standard in rental agreements.

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

Re:Seems reasonable

[wired_parrot]

I would say if the tenant is renting it out and able to make a profit it is only possible if the landlord is renting below market value. The tenant is merely exploiting the difference between his listed rental price and the market rental to make a profit. In a city with no rent control laws, landlords can always raise the rent to the market price.

The real issue here I suspect is the rent control laws, that force landlords to offer below market rates to tenants - and tenants savy enough to realize the bargain they are getting just sublet their units at the market rent for an easy profit.

Re:Seems reasonable

[AuMatar]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Short-stay rents are always much higher than long term rents. But the risks to the lessor are higher - a less reliable income, greater risk of damage, plus you'll usually be paying for the utilities.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

It's property that you've entered into a contract to acquire the right to occupy and use in exchange money. What seems reasonable is simply having the contract spell out what is and is not allowed so both parties can make an informed decision about whether they want to agree to the contract.

Re:Seems reasonable

[AcidPenguin9873]

It's not just rent control. Short-term rentals, such as weekends and week-long rentals that Airbnb deals in, necessarily command a higher price than yearlong or longer commitments. That's because with weeklong rentals, the lessor has to go through the trouble of finding a new tenant every week instead of being guaranteed the rent for the year.

Of course, you can make the argument that the yearlong lessee who then rents his unit to a different occupant every week is putting in the extra effort every week to find a new tenant to realize those profits, and the landlord himself could do the same but chooses not to (he chooses to get the guaranteed yearlong rent instead). But, as was stated above, it's not the lessee's property to decide how it should be rented, so I don't know that this argument holds up.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

subletting is long term so you don't break your lease. it's not to let you turn your apartment into a hotel and make a profit

Re: Seems reasonable

[guruevi]

A lot of rent in cities are paid by governments. So a "low income" tenant may not even have to pay rent, get income assistance, food stamps they live "temporarily" with a partner, husband/wife or family that has the same arrangement (gets assistance etc) while subletting the entire house and netting the entire rent in cash to students or other transient residents.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Opportunist]

I tend to disagree. The landlord made a "convenient" long term lease contract with the renter who, in turn, has the work with finding short term renters and bears the risk that he won't find any, thus having to pay rent while gaining no income.

It is, essentially, like the situation between wholesale and retail. And I guess you don't want to tell us that the wholesale has any right to any additional compensation above the wholesale price whenever the retailer sells part of the commodity he bought in bulk?

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

That's not necessarily true. The market value for a place to stay can fluctuate for all sorts of reasons. Look at how hotel rates fluctuate between weekdays and weekends, by season, and if there is some kind of special event happening nearby.

Furthermore there is a lot of cost associated in renting out a place for the short term. This is why staying in a hotel for a couple nights is more expensive over time than renting an apartment. The hotel needs to clean the room before every new guest arrives, etc.

I suspect you might have a hard time getting your landlord to clean your apartment before each of your airbnb guests arrive.

Not to mention that a lot of work goes into scheduling customers. Hotels don't get paid for the times that their rooms are empty, but a landlord still gets paid when you go on a vacation and your apartment is unoccupied.

Re:Seems reasonable

[RelliK]

> I would say if the tenant is renting it out and able to make a profit it is only possible if the landlord is renting below market value.

Not at all. A short-term stay at a furnished apartment is always going to cost a lot more than a long-term lease of an unfurnished one. What the tenants are doing is renting out their place while they are away (vacation, trip, etc.). Of course that still violates the no-subleasing rule found in most contracts. But I think the only thing landlord can do in this case is evict the tenant.

Re:Seems reasonable

[AcidPenguin9873]

That's because with weeklong rentals, the lessor has to go through the trouble of finding a new tenant every week instead of being guaranteed the rent for the year.

And probably more importantly, with shorter-term commitments, the lessor takes on the risk that no one will rent the place the next week and there will be no rental income. So the shorter-term commitments price this risk in via higher rent per day for a shorter commitment.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's standard in Australia - in fact, it may even be a guaranteed right.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

As a renter, I dislike this idea. I know all of my neighbors. I feel safe in my building. The last thing I want is to have randos (properly vetted or otherwise) in the building on a regular basis.

Re:Seems reasonable

[phorm]

Unless you have a rental agreement prohibiting subletting, I'm not sure they have much of a case. It's not your property, but it is your space for the term of the rental.

Essentially airbnb etc are a short form of sublet. A lot of (IMHO, smart) landlords do prohibit subletting though, so they should be able to a let prevent airbnb rentals if not profit from them.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

As a landlord, I always include a "no subletting" clause in the agreement for exactly that reason. It's hard enough to get reimbursed if the tenant damages the property but if they've sublet to someone else then it becomes - for all practical purposes - pretty much impossible.

On the other hand, if the tenant really wanted to run the place as an AirBnB spot I wouldn't be demanding a cut per se, I'd just boost the rental to cover my additional risk instead.

Re:Seems reasonable

[msauve]

"if the tenant is renting it out and able to make a profit it is only possible if the landlord is renting below market value."

So, you think that the per diem for a one year lease should be the same as that for an overnight rental? Do you know what Airbnb is?

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

You mean a 'guaranteed entitlement' of-course, nobody has a 'right' to steal or otherwise misuse other people's property.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Darinbob]

Every single rental agreement I every used always forbid subletting. The was the number one thing they would point out to make sure no one made any mistakes. Some other places I did not rent did allow subleases but you had to get a sublease form filled out and approved. Landlords do not want strangers staying in their properties without having a legal agreement.

This is not about money, the "cut" does not matter. What matters is that it is NOT the renter's property.

Look at it like a rental auto. You can not let any of your friends drive your rental, even if the rental agency is getting a "cut".

Re:Seems reasonable

[SeaFox]

I would say if the tenant is renting it out and able to make a profit it is only possible if the landlord is renting below market value. The tenant is merely exploiting the difference between his listed rental price and the market rental to make a profit.

You're assuming the (actual) renter is using AirBnB to make a profit. They could be simply renting out an extra room or the whole place while they are out of town to recoup some of their paid rent for that month. It's not possible to put your lease payments on hold while you're on vacation after all. The value of the residence isn't necessarily being judged wrong. The original renter agreed to pay the rate for all the space and amenities in the location, and now are getting money in return for letting someone use a portion of that they have already rented.

The cost of residence on a short-term basis is always higher than long term rental (even for just one month).
Sounds like you're making the logical fallacy that if someone is willing to pay $X for one day that the value of the property is X*30 for a month.

Re:Seems reasonable

[AuMatar]

As a small time landlord, I have the same thing in my agreement- although if my tenant needed to leave and found a replacement, I'd either terminate his lease early or agree to transfer the remainder of his lease to the new guy. I just want to be in on that loop.

For a big time landlord- someone who owns hundreds of units- I can see why they'd want this. Some percentage of their users will break their lease and do this anyway, either through ignorance or not caring. Stopping them requires suing and/or an eviction, each of which take time, money, and have risk (the tenant can wreck the place in the meantime). An agreement with AirBnB to get X% of the revenue from their units in exchange for not suing AirBnB (who may be negligent in renting those units knowing those tenants are unlikely to have sublet rights) and the tenants (and just not renewing their leases when they're up or giving warnings for just a 1 off deal) could reduce the landlords risk by enough to be worth a less litigious approach.

Re:Seems reasonable

[magarity]

The right to sublet is often standard in rental agreements

It's right there in the summary that the leases in question cannot be sublet: "a form of illegal subletting"

Re:Seems reasonable

[Harlequin80]

I'm not so sure about this. From the Rental Tenants Authority Queensland site one of the things they list in their FAQ is:
* The property manager/owner’s permission must be sought for all people living at the property, even if they are sub-letting.
https://www.rta.qld.gov.au/Ren...

Re:Seems reasonable

[Harlequin80]

Short term rentals tend to suffer greater levels of wear and tear than long term rentals as well. So this is a consideration when choosing between the two options.

Re:Seems reasonable

[chipschap]

I realize the issue is complex (I was once a landlord myself), but while landlords have legitimate interests, a lot of them are just plain greedy and a certain percentage are downright dishonest.

I always tried to be fair with tenants and work with them. I had a few bad tenants, of course, like anyone does, but by and large with almost everyone we could mutually work things out when necessary.

But then, I was only looking for a reasonable return on investment, not trying to squeeze every cent out of people who often didn't have a lot in the first place.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Harlequin80]

The difference between your examples is that you are talking renting vs sale. The ownership of the property remains with the original owner. There are differences in wear and tear between long term renters and short stays and yet in this instance the cost of those repairs and maintenance increases is staying with the original owner and not being put onto the middle man.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Darinbob]

A right to do what? Let complete strangers live in someone else's propery without their permission?
"Who the hell are you?"
"Dude, I'm living here for two weeks, I'm a friend of Joe's."
"Joe? Who the hell is Joe?"
"You know, he's one of the 10 people leasing the place from Bob."
"Bob? Who's Bob? I rented the place to John!"

Such rights where they exist are for the purpose of keeping the tenant in the apartment despite a leave of absence for some reason or other. Especially in cases where there is rent control. Ie, tentant has to leave for 6 months for a work assignment. In some places the tenant must inform the landlord, name the person getting the sublease, affirm that the original tenant will return, get agreement from other co-tentants, etc. But the landlord must always know who is living at the property. This is not the AirBnB model.

Also, don't confuse sub-leases with assignment of leases, or getting roommates, etc.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

This. This is actually a pretty reasonable request.

On the advantages, you can actually get insurance on it, it isn't likely to put you in jail for illegal subletting.
Those are huge benefits for what would be a small cut in money gained from said subletting.

I'm not sure if it has some issues with multiple residency though.
I am sure in the UK there needs to be a licence to allow such things, not sure in the US.
Although, since these companies are looking in to it, they likely will get it anyway since they'd sorta have to if they were going ahead with it. It would just be moving the illegality of the operation on to them rather than the renters.

There will likely be some issues with rental agreements though.
But since the issue is being brought up, these companies likely don't have such an agreement. I mean, they could easily be bullshitting their way to more money, but I don't know without seeing their terms with the renters.
If this is the case, that would be pretty damn shitty and I hope it gets turned down. But I would also be sad because it would cause a lot of issues with this service in the future too. It would make things very complicated indeed.
This situation is far from simple. This could be pretty game-changing.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Australian government defines it as a right, it is such to the citizens of that country. Your peculiar and limited notions of what constitute rights are not universal.

Re:Seems reasonable

[ceoyoyo]

It's standard in many places where month-to-month leases basically don't happen. Who wants to move and still have to pay for eight months of a lease?

Re: Seems reasonable

[ColdWetDog]

'Randos' - I like that....

Re:Seems reasonable

[ColdWetDog]

Yeah, it's like they're rent seeking or something.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Darinbob]

Localities that allow sub-leasing usually require some agreement between the owner and the renter. The purpose of the sub-lease is that the tenant will vacate temporarily but will return and does not want to lose the right to rent (especially in the case of rent control). This does not cover the AirBnB case of leaving for the weekend and hoping to make some fast cash in secret. The renter must inform the owner or landlord or manager and they must give consent first. Sometimes there is a reasonable consent clause, but of course that is not automatic and you must sue if you think the landlord was wrong for not allowing the sublease. If you don't seek permission from the owner then they have every right to toss you out if the original rental agreement had conditions regarding sub leases (and in many places they have this right even if it's not in writing).

There is no analogy to wholesale. With the retail market you are buying the product outright, at which point you can destroy it if you like, give it away, etc. You are not buying a room from the landlord, you are only renting it. A closer analogy is contracting versus sub-contracting with builders or professionals.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jafiwam]

My lease includes provisions about not running a business out of the apartment. (Though, the previous guy did with full knowledge of the landlord and I assume permission.) I fully understand why a landlord would not want AirBNB or other stuff like that going on. I sure don't like strange people hanging out around the grounds when it's unusual, having it on a daily basis would be very aggravating.

Re:Seems reasonable

[bloodhawk]

The right to sublet is often standard in rental agreements.

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

Standard??? since when? The standard is generally NO RIGHT to sublet.

Re:Seems reasonable

[phorm]

Ditto, although I don't rent out my whole place (just rooms), which also saves from me being subject to certain laws which make it *really* hard to get rid of bad tenants. I've only had one of those thankfully (she was in for all of a month then tried to skip paying rent).

Most of my renters seem pretty happy with the situation, at least to the extent that the ones who have moved out still chat with me on Facebook or occasionally come over for dinner etc. I think the strongest accusation I've had from a renter was "you're not my dad" (in response to me telling him he was being a bit loud for the neighbours)... to which my response was "no, I'm the landlord, and happy neighbours is worth more to me than your money" (he stayed, and cut the noise down in the evenings).

Re:Seems reasonable

[bloodhawk]

No it isn't. Most states require the explicit permission of the landlord for a sublet to be legal. It is certainly NOT a guaranteed right.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Opportunist]

Actually, it is. When you're renting, any wear that goes above and beyond normal use is something you have to compensate the landlord for.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

BULLSHIT. Australia has no such right for subletting, you need the owners permission and they have a right to refuse you permission to sublet

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You mean a 'guaranteed entitlement' of-course, nobody has a 'right' to steal or otherwise misuse other people's property."

Well, it is a good thing that nobody is stealing or misusing other people's property then I guess! I don't know where you got that ridiculous idea, but it is a ridiculous notion. If the people are subletting then that landlord has the same scenario exactly. The place is occupied by a party other than the owner, and a deposit plus standard liability on the part of the original lessee covers the landlord in case of damages, etc. You might object: "But the landlord doesn't want person y to be there, they want person x!", but what you don't grasp is that there are all kinds of things the landlord may want. Perhaps they only want a democrat for a tenant, or they don't like a particular car that has a bumper sticker they find objectionable, but in the end so long as the property is not being vandalized and is instead treated properly, the landlord has no reasonable objection.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off my lawn, you Randos!

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

If the property is treated the same way as if the original lessee or better then so what? You are assuming that the original lessee is a better tenant than the sub-letter(s), which is of course a fallacious presumption.

Re:Seems reasonable

[klui]

If the renter wants to make money with property, they should buy a house. Or they rent from people who explicitly permit subleasing. The contracts I've seen are quite clear: either tenants can sublease or they cannot. Most, if not all of them I've seen do not allow it. People who have thought it through tend not to allow it.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Harlequin80]

My experience with renters has been that this only goes as far as their bond. After that the owner has to go through the legal process to recoup and is often not worth the recovery cost.

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

Actually as a landlord I would not authorize any subletting of my property and would take you to court and remove you judiciously from my property should you violate the contract where I state that very thing unequivocally and the contract is agreed upon by both sides before possession takes place. Most definitely a landlord can remove a tenant if the tenant violates terms of the contract agreement, it may go to court but it will be enforced.

Re:Seems reasonable

[phorm]

To add to my comment, I genuinely get pissed over bad landlords. Yes, I've had a few issues with tenants, but mercifully few. On the other hand, I've had plenty of friends who have been stuck renting disgusting over-priced rat-holes. They're more than happy to show up for rent, but not so much when stuff breaks down. You've got a right to kick out tenants who are breaking their rental agreement (i.e. by subletting, etc), or if they or their subletters are causing damage etc. Otherwise, you're quite possibly SOL. If you want to make the money off airbnb, then rent your own damn place out on airbnb. If you want to make the money without the work, rent it out through an agency.

Re:Seems reasonable

[CanadianRealist]

all people living at the property, even if they are sub-letting

So if you sign a lease and then you have a child you must seek the property owner's permission for your child to live there with you? I'm assuming children are legally people. And "even if they are sub-letting" isn't requiring that they be subletting. (Before someone says "but the child isn't subletting.")

I'd say the law as written says you have to ask permission. If that's not the intention then the law is badly written. Wouldn't that mean discrimination against people with children is allowed?

Re:Seems reasonable

[ChrisMaple]

The landlord has the right to by contract set the conditions under which the property is used. The terms don't have to be reasonable, the prospective tenant has the right and ability to not sign the contract and to seek lodging elsewhere, or to bargain for a different contract.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You are also, presumably, paying the landlord's mortgage as well as all of the other expenses involved when you pay your rent, so it's pretty much just a select few landlords are incredibly greedy.

Re:Seems reasonable

[layabout]

you got it backwards. the is no natural right to property otherwise you would not need laws and force to back up property ownership.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

By that argument, there's no such thing as property rights at all. I mean, it's all just bureaucracy, right? What makes one form more valid than another?

Re:Seems reasonable

[AuMatar]

Generally you have a termination clause- termination of the lease in exchange for 1 or 2 months rent at any time. Or you work with the landlord, most will be flexible and transfer a lease. But almost all leases include no sublet clauses, most of the sublets you know are probably doing so illegally. In a place where landlords have so much market power they won't do a month to month there's no way in hell they'd allow you to sublease which is even worse for them.

Re:Seems reasonable

[ChrisMaple]

Consider this: it's wartime, and the lessee subleases the apartment to an enemy saboteur. Without his knowledge, the landlord is now guilty of harboring an enemy combatant. Still no problem?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Darinbob]

That's the point. Some locales have a "reasonable consent" for the landlord, which means that if the person is reasonable then consent to sub-lease should not be denied. However this "reasonable" does mean that the landlord is asked for consent in the first place, the sub-lessor is a known person (not to-be-named-later), there is reasonable expectation of financial ability to pay, possibly credit checks are done, criminal checks are done, etc. If these checks were done on the original tenant then they must be done on the temporary tenant. You can not come back after the fact and say "he seemed like a good guy who was going to treat it well" and be excused.

However with AirBnB they pretend as if none of this matters. They want the tenants to rent for a weekend to a complete stranger without telling the landlord. If AirBnB is operating with the home owner then there's no problem, the owner can rent out for the weekend (subject to local laws). But if AirBnB is trying to get a renter to sub-rent for a few days then this is suddenly very problematic. There is much more to be done then just the two parties meeting over coffee and agreeing to be discrete so that the owner never finds out. If the owner is not informed then the tenant can be evicted, even in most rent controlled areas.

Consider if it's a room in a house. What government is going to say that any random stranger can sub-lease there based on "renter's rights"? The same should apply to a rented house, or a rented apartment. Someone else owns it and the owner must be informed and give consent if someone is going to live there. This isn't about buying a cup of coffee so who cares who drinks it, it's about letting someone else live in property that you own who needs to take care of it and pay regular uninterrupted payments to do so.

Re:Seems reasonable

[mjwx]

It is not that simple you have rights as a renter. You may not have the right to sublet however.

This.

That means you may not use the property as a commercial enterprise. To me, owners asking for a cut is a very, very fair compromise on that rule.

Before some smart arse pipes up and says "but it's no different to having a home office", first let me say, you're an idiot because it's completely different. As a home office you're running a business out of your abode, as an AirBNB you're running your abode AS A BUSINESS.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jrumney]

In Australia, your case would be thrown out of court, because tenants have a legal right to quiet enjoyment of the property they are leasing from you, including the right to sublease. Contracts cannot overrule law. Running a hotel on the other hand, probably requires permits and stricter fire regulations etc, and if the courts decide that airbnb qualifies as a hotel, then the tenants may be in breach of other laws (which may become a breach of your contract).

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

Nowhere did I say that Australia is in any way shape or form a sane country or that anybody there understands what the difference between rights and entitlements is. All I am telling you is that saying that a government can use its force to oppress one individual on behalf of another individual is not a right, it's an entitlement. It is nomenclature, but words are important, redefining words is an Orwellian attempt at changing understanding of concepts of population in order to control the people.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jrumney]

So if you sign a lease and then you have a child you must seek the property owner's permission for your child to live there with you?

I'm not sure about Queensland, but a lot of places have laws about renting out overcrowded properties. So yes, I think the intention of the law is that you do have to seek permission from the owner for your newborn child to live there, but probably there are other laws that apply which effectively narrow the scope of when the owner can say no in this case to where the property would become overcrowded. Often the laws on overcrowding only count children over a certain age, so the tenants can be given plenty of notice.

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

If there is no natural right to property then you do not own your body and organs and freedom because your natural right to property starts with yourself and extends to the fruits of your labour, as they are expression of your time on this planet.

But again, a right is a protection against a government oppression, I am not talking about natural rights, I am talking about what the point of a right as a concept is in the first place.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Opinions and cultures other than your own are insane. And any of the other of the infinitely many possible ways to govern people that you do not use are obviously wrong and stupid for being wrong and they should clearly fix it by agreeing with you.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You would always be able to say you didn't know what was going on at the property. It's worked for drug houses for years now. Nothing in us law says a landlord has to actually visit the property.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TapeCutter]

Where do you live? - I have never seen a lease that does not forbid subletting. I doubt any of this is about the owners "getting a cut", as an Aussie landlord I would be especially concerned about the effect of subletting on my insurance policy. If the place is trashed will I don't want to be personally chasing some penniless college students with the bill. Accidents and drunken parties happen every second of the day, I want my insurance company to organise and pay for any repairs with the minimum amount of paperwork and haggling.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

It also cannot unreasonably be denied.

This is basic English common law.

If you lose your job and can't pay your rent, you have the right to sublet your apartment. It's not like your landlord can say "fuck you, no subletting"

But this is the internet. Reasonableness just doesn't happen....

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

In at least some states in the United States there is no "lost my job" exception to a "no subletting" term in a lease.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're paying interest to a bank or taxes to a city, it is not your property. Try not paying your mortgage or your taxes and see how far you get.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TapeCutter]

The AC is just plain old wrong. You cannot sublet the entire property in Oz without the owner's consent. However the number of rooms you rent to third parties (flatmates, paying guests, desperate relatives) is none of their business. OTOH the tax office will be interested in paying guests that book a stay via the internet. At the end of the day the overall intent of the law is quite simple, whoever's name is on the lease is responsible for what happens on and to the property, doesn't matter what agreements they make with anybody else, bankruptcy is the only way to absolve themselves of that contractual responsibility. Something to ponder if you're thinking about signing on to airbnb over the holidays.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

No, the point is that a tenant agrees to reside in the apartment and ensure that the property is treated responsibly. If the sub-lessee violates the lease that is the same as if the original lessee does so, and the original lessee continues to be responsible for the proper treatment of said property, and liable for any transgressions thereof.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Or even if it isn't wartime... The lessee subleases the apartment to human trafficer. Without his knowledge, the landlord is now the owner of a child sex slave facility. Still no problem?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Harlequin80]

That came from the FAQ and will probably be a simplification of the actual legislative instrument. I do know that when you apply for a rental you include all the members of your family at that time and these are then given to the owner. It would then leave open the opportunity to discriminate based on family even if it was illegal to do so.

Re: Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

The landlord is guilty of crimes are committed on his property by a sub-lessee. It's the law.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Look at it like a rental auto. You can not let any of your friends drive your rental, even if the rental agency is getting a "cut".

That's for insurance purposes. They allow you to add whoever you want as an authorized driver, you just might have to pay more.

Landlords do not get to prevent "strangers" from staying in their property. I can invite over whoever I want to stay in a place I am renting, nor do I have to even be there at the same time. It is only when it is for money that it counts as subleasing, and lease contracts will either specifically allow or disallow them. I have never seen a lease that stipulated that guests are prohibited or require approval by the landlord.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes, it is indeed still no problem; you simply don't understand the law. A landlord is never guilty of a crime that his tenant commits unless he had knowledge of said law violation and did nothing about it. Even then the landlord would not be guilty of the crime, but rather of aiding and abetting.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

I agree 100%, and it has further utility as it readily identifies the landlord as an unreasonable scumbag who should be avoided at all cost, of course ;-)

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Surely there is just some extra amount you can pay the insurance company to cover damage in the event of subletting. Just pass that cost onto your lessee if they want to sub-lease.

Re: Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

Many cultures are insane. There are cultures that practice genital mutilation, there are cultures that force people into religions from the very young age as a way to control them through 'culture', from my perspective it is insane but AFAIC morals are relative, so looking from within a culture like that it may seem perfectly normal under the circumstances. Objectively speaking anything like that removes individual rights to self governance and sovereignty.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Sounds like a good reason to have a higher deposit

Re:Seems reasonable

[KiloByte]

Or even worse, the lessee has an Israeli/atheist/etc girlfriend. Still no problem?

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

Laws which permit X but not if it is in exchange for money are always a bit hard to manage. It's not always easy to prove a quid pro quo arrangement. Obviously in the case of airbnb it's pretty clear, but what about couch surfing? What about letting people you don't know stay at your place you are renting when you are on vacation? What if you let people stay in your apartment in exchange for food or use of a car?

Re:Seems reasonable

[jrumney]

So the government using force to oppress the slaveholder on behalf of a slave is not a right, it is an entitlement? What exactly is a right in your narrow world view?

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

"To me, owners asking for a cut is a very, very fair compromise on that rule."

That's because you're one of those people that just can't stand someone else getting something that you're not. Like those little monkeys who freak out when the other monkey gets two grapes and you only got one. Or like children in kindergarten. This is why the world sucks, because of people like you. No offense. It's the same psychological issues that make a guy buy a Ferrari because his neighbor bought a Lotus. You'll never be happy with what you have, and you'll take and take and take until nobody else has anything. Landlords are greedy scumwads (in general). If it's not in your lease agreement, I say it's fair game.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Harlequin80]

In Queensland if the rent is less than $700 pw then the maximum bond allowed is 4 weeks rent. If the weekly rent exceeds $700 pw then there is no limit.

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

I was being sarcastic.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'll have to take your word for it (and I do). I was assuming you were agreeing with the GP. I still don't see any indication to the contrary prior to you now saying you meant the opposite of what you said :-(

Peace ...

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

I figured responding to him instead of you would be a clue...

Re:Seems reasonable

[TsuruchiBrian]

So if you want to have a higher deposit then you need to raise the rent to $700? Who does that help?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

Only if you assume all posts are rebuttals, and nobody ever agrees. You seem to still be doing it :-) I accept your claim! ;-)

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

And... NOT in Australia, the laws are different. Get over it.

Re:Seems reasonable

[gl4ss]

but it is, effectively.

while you are renting, it is in your command.

or put in other ways, if the damage from the sub-renter is your responsibility then the owner should have no cut or no say in anything.

aaaaanyways, in some countries/legislations this is exactly the case. you rent your property and you have NO right to make spot checks or creep around and make up petty rules.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

My lease stipulates that I must notify the landlord if anyone not specifically named in the lease will be staying more than 48 hours in any 30 day period. So, a guest for the night/weekend is fine, but I am supposed to notify them if my new girlfriend is likely to be over frequently.

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

See how absolutely wrong you are and how you are unable to recognize the actual meaning of what I am saying at all? I will show you, because you cannot understand it yourself.

A right is a protection against government oppression. A government helping a slave owner is destroying the right of the slave. A person's right is a protection against government oppression. Are you under a weird impression that a government using its power to give a slave owner some sort of legal leg to stand on against an enslaved individual is somehow not a violation of a human right?

Again, for the weak minded like you are: a government using its force to help a slave owner is by definition taking away rights of the enslaved.

This is how USA had slavery: government position on slavery was actually that slavery was legal.

Now, what you are saying is perversion, that is not what I am talking about. A government using force to oppress a slave owner is actually consistent with my position, though I am against all and any government existing in the first place. However if a government exists and it uses its power to prevent slavery then what we have is a government that restores the equality of individual freedoms before law. On the other hand, my position is that it is actually none of government's business! That's right, it is a personal business, not a governmental one. It can be seen as a legal case (and it should be) but I am against all government (hope you understand it by now), so it is up to a secular and a private court system and a secular and a private police force to deal with such cases.

I am against all governments, not one person should be above another person in terms of legal status where it concerns the legal system. This is consistent with my position that government using oppression to provide an individual with property and / or time of another individual is a case of oppression and entitlement.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please? I own two properties in Australia (QLD and WA) that are leased out. Last year we had the QLD tenant evicted for subletting (breach of rental contract), we went through all the legal processes to do this and at no stage was their any issue in having this done. We know we can also do this in WA, so this is deinfitely NOT A RIGHT in Australia, maybe some other states are different?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Darinbob]

You can invite over, but that is not sub-leasing though. Sub-leasing means you are leaving the apartment temporarily but you don't want to lose your tenancy, so you sub-lease to someone else who will pay the rent. That person should meet the same standards you did when you applied for the rental. This does not seem to be what a weekend vacation rental is, you may be gone for 2 days but your rent is monthly and not daily.

I have seen landlords raise rent when the figure out that there are now two people effectively living there when you signed an agreement for only one, because the girlfriend is a "guest" 7 nights out of 7. Ie, the guest became a roommate. If you pretend all those AirBnB visitors paying are merely guests then you're doing exactly what AirBnB wants and that's to be discrete and never say out loud that you're using AirBnB because otherwise the landlords and government would take an interest and screw up their business model.

Of course lots of people cheat this stuff, especially when there's not much income. One person "cat sits" for a few months, effectively being a full time tenant. Landlords don't mind this too much if the person isn't trashing stuff. But AirBnB crosses a line that's hard to just wink away, especially when they're looking for any reason to get someone out of the rent controlled space so that they can charge full market again.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Actually as a landlord ..."

Well, I have always said 8 or 9 out of 10 landlords are assholes. You don't do anything to contradict my observation having seen your idiotic posts over the years. The fact that you think I would ever get involved with a self-important douchebag like yourself, who thinks he can dictate Draconian terms 'cause he da' landlord!', is hilarious.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. At least not in my experience. Every single lease I've ever signed has explicitly forbidden subletting. Though we did ignore that in a dodgy student share house I was in many, many years ago with no ill effects.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the normal state of human beings. The fact that we have any civilization at all is nothing short of exceptional. Try convincing three-year-olds that they should share their toys - it takes a lot of training and even then it doesn't stick. Actually, it isn't why the world sucks - it's why we have such an advanced world, because people want more and more. We could still be stuck in feudalism if the conditions had been right - it's what happened to China for thousands of years. The secret is to take such selfish behavior and channel it in positive directions. Make the best of a bad situation - but people like you want a perfect utopia. And if you can't have your utopia then we all deserve to have our civilization wrecked. This is why the world sucks, because of people like you. No offense.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, three year olds are a cakewalk next to your average CEO or entitled small business owner.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Capsaicin]

A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else.

"Nonsense walking on stilts!" How are the various rights appurtenant to copyright ownership, for example, "a protection against government abuse and oppression?"

A right is that which you can successfully enforce against another party in a court of law. Of course that is the legal positivist view of what a right is, the natural law folks, among others, entertain different illusions. ;)

Thus (lawful) occupancy of land, for example, grants rights (enforced ultimately by the state, but for whom no rights could exist), inter alia the right to exclude from the property other parties (including, but subject to the terms of the lease, the non-occupant owner).

As it happens the standard (short-term) lease in NSW (and this is a matter for the states not the federal government), at least, gives the landlord and tenant the opportunity to come to an arrangement regarding subletting, as it give the landlord a right of refusal providing that right is exercised "reasonably" (see Clause 32)

Re:Seems reasonable

[raynet]

Though if you live in a civilized country, the government wouldn't help you to enforce a contract if it is unreasonable. When you rent an apartment to someone, you cannot tell them how to use that property. They do have to compensate you if they damage it, but it is none of your business if they sublet it or give it their friend and allow her to live there for free.

Re:Seems reasonable

[jrumney]

So in your worldview, people who do not have the economic means to own their own property are the equivalent of slaveholders, and landowners are the equivalent of slaves?

Re:Seems reasonable

[Capsaicin]

If there is no natural right to property then you do not own your body and organs and freedom because your natural right to property starts with yourself and extends to the fruits of your labour, as they are expression of your time on this planet.

And again, your rights to your own body and organs are those which the law bestows and nothing more. Thus for example NSW law (as I believe does the law of the several states) prohibits the sale of human tissue including one's own (e.g. blood, semen organs), which are all donated.

The idea that one has inherent ownership in one's body (and thus arguably the Lockean conception of property as the admixture of Labor and Nature generally) falls victim to a famous contradiction. Throughout the British C'th till 1833, and for some time thereafter in the US, there existed an entire class of people who famously were not owners of their own bodies, but rather owned. Now when the law sought to prohibit the trade in humans it thereby deprived everyone of one of the most important property rights: the ability to alienate that property. In short the contradiction is this, if by Nature or the Will of God, one was possessed of full proprietary rights to one's own body, one should be able to sell oneself into slavery, but where slavery is permitted to exist there are people who are born with no right to the property in their own bodies.

But again, a right is a protection against a government oppression

Which is again a nonsense, since many rights exist which are enforceable against non-government parties. These include property rights of all kinds, which you are unwittingly arguing do not exist.

Re:Seems reasonable

[SuperDre]

oh that's really BS, most agreements forbid subletting, it certainly isn't standard..

Re:Seems reasonable

[bloodhawk]

running a business as a hotel/AirBnb is more than sufficient reason to deny the request. The subletting is there to allow people to share, let out a room on a permanent basis etc, it is not there as a provision to let you run a business.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I live in Belgium. When I got married I had to request permission from my landlord and present it in writing with legalized signature for my wife to move into my apartment. I have a 2 bedroom apartment. We have no kids (yet).

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

No it wouldn't be thrown out. In Australia the landlord only has to have reasonable terms, he can't prevent you from sharing the rental property with someone that is appropriately vetted (assuming you have a long term lease), he most definitely can prevent you from turning it in a Bnb and should you do that without approval that is more than adequate reason to turf you out on your arse. running a business is well beyond the legal definition of reasonable subletting in Australia.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

Where?

Re: Seems reasonable

[metrix007]

LOL. The US is one of the most insane cultures and countries on the planet. Australia is a space fairing civilization by comparison.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You can throw Canada into the mix if you like:

http://www.ontariotenants.ca/law/act06.phtml

Though landlords aren't force to take a sublet, refusal is cause to end the lease early--possibly a worse outcome for the landlord!

Re:Seems reasonable

[david_thornley]

Do I have property rights? Currently, the law forbids other people to beat me up and walk away with my property. If a right is a freedom from government oppression, and anything else is an entitlement, then my property rights are limited to restricting government agents from stealing or damaging my stuff, and everything else is a property entitlement.

Suppose I lived in a place with no government. Then, by your definition, I'd have all possible rights, and anyone else would have the right to break into my house, kill me, rape and kill my wife, and burn the place down when leaving. I really don't think this is a useful definition of "right".

Re:Seems reasonable

[GameboyRMH]

roman_mir is a landlord!? 8-(

FSM help his tenants...

Re:Seems reasonable

[david_thornley]

Actually, with one exception, my landlords have been well-behaved and helpful. I've heard some landlords complain about certain tenants. In one case, the tenant left the apartment door wide open on a frigid night, freezing the plumbing for the entire stack above the tenant. (Since I lived two floors above that tenant at the time, I was not happy.) I knew a guy who did some rental property on the side talking about how one of his tenants had changed his oil in the driveway, and not bothered to use an oil pan, so five quarts of oil were dumped on an asphalt driveway.

Renting is a risk on both sides. The tenant may wind up with an unreasonable landlord, and the landlord may wind up with a destructive tenant. It's not a business I want to be in.

Leases often have clauses forbidding behaviors the landlord considers potentially destructive. Now, if I were renting out an apartment, I'd want to check out my tenant to have some idea about whether the tenant is likely to pay rent and not trash the place or disturb the neighbors unduly. If my hypothetical tenant were to sublet without my permission, I could wind up with someone who will trash the place and I may not get my rent (if the original tenant had moved away, for example). If the tenant sublets to multiple short-term tenants, the odds of getting the place damaged or my other tenants disrupted goes up a lot.

Re:Seems reasonable

[david_thornley]

A landlord would much rather nobody damage the place than have major damage and be recompensed for the direct costs. A landlord would much, much rather nobody damage the place beyond the damage deposit and refuse to pay more without a court order. Get reasonable here. Not everyone is responsible, or can afford to pay large and unexpected bills.

Re:Seems reasonable

[david_thornley]

I'd guess it depends on the business, and the landlord may have such a provision while intending to waive it depending on the business. If I were a landlord, I'd be fine with a business that was reasonably quiet, not destructive, and which did not mean the tenant would admit customers to the building.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

In leases where subletting is permitted, it is also a requirement that the new tenant sign a lease. I've also seen leases with restrictions on overnight guests.

Re:Seems reasonable

[JesseMcDonald]

A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else.

You're defining the term much too narrowly. A law which states that you have a certain legal right offers protection against violation of that right by the government. Rights themselves are more general than that: the violation of a natural right by anyone, not just the goverment, inherently justifies the use of proportional force in self-defense. (That is why they are referred to as natural rights, and also why they are limited to negative rights prohibiting the initiation of force against non-aggressors.)

Re:Seems reasonable

[Fnord666]

I'd guess it depends on the business, and the landlord may have such a provision while intending to waive it depending on the business. If I were a landlord, I'd be fine with a business that was reasonably quiet, not destructive, and which did not mean the tenant would admit customers to the building.

Except now the property is being used for purposes other than what it is zoned for and you can face some pretty hefty fines for willingly allowing that business to operate there.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

No. You don't get it. You have just as much chance of not getting rent as beore. The subletting deal is between the lessee and the sublessee. The original lessee is still beholden to you.

Re:Seems reasonable

[tlhIngan]

So if you sign a lease and then you have a child you must seek the property owner's permission for your child to live there with you? I'm assuming children are legally people. And "even if they are sub-letting" isn't requiring that they be subletting. (Before someone says "but the child isn't subletting.")

I'd say the law as written says you have to ask permission. If that's not the intention then the law is badly written. Wouldn't that mean discrimination against people with children is allowed?

Not to surprise you, but yes, you do need permission. Because a child living on premises might not actually be allowed!

There are many places that are adults-only who choose to live there because they don't want to live (or deal with) children. Just like there are many properties that don't allow pets, for example. Or restrict what kind of pets.

Heck, there was even a case where a property was for elderly people - sure non-elderly people were allowed to live there, but there had to be at least one elderly person there. Well, said elderly person passed, and the landlord started the eviction process because their son wasn't elderly.

Anyhow, this is probably better - if you want to negotiate the ability to sublet, your landlord might jack up the rent significantly because of the insurance and other issues. And usually for sublets they demand to know who you're subletting to ahead of time. With this, the landlord only gets increased rent when you actually rent out the place.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

Seriously. You are an idiot stating the obvious. Just STFU.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are renting it is not your property.

I rented a larger office. I paid my share of taxes, lighting, internet and a secretary. I was able to partition the office space into three, so as to divide the costs. You are saying that I am not allowed to do so? Well, too bad, I am. The city only collects one business tax, not three, and that was based on square footage. Three businesses shared the internet and phone system.

Re:Seems reasonable

[roman_mir]

Yes, in a place with no government you have all the rights and you have responsibilities to protect your own rights, it's a private responsibility of yourself to yourself and that is why people under those conditions actually create private security and justice system as they see needed.

Re: Seems reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, you can make the argument that the yearlong lessee who then rents his unit to a different occupant every week is putting in the extra effort every week to find a new tenant to realize those profits, and the landlord himself could do the same but chooses not to (he chooses to get the guaranteed yearlong rent instead)."

Residential property is ZONED residential: tat is, the only permitted use is residentail tenancies 3 months or greater. Landlord could not rent out as holiday short star or BnB style accommodation without conciliatory approval.

So it's possible the tenants subletting as short term accommodation is outside the prioertys permitted use.

Re: Seems reasonable

[dgallard]

> so it is up to a secular and a private court system and a secular and a private police force to deal with such cases.

Like the KKK for example?

Re:Seems reasonable

[david_thornley]

My house is in a residential zone, and nobody cares if I do some software consultation from my home. Therefore, there has to be some allowance in at least some areas.

Re:Seems reasonable

[david_thornley]

Actually, no.

If I'm a small-scale landlord, I try to pick renters that won't be trouble. I'm limited by various laws, but I can be picky to some extent. Therefore, I have leased an apartment to a renter I have some reason to trust.

If the renter sublets without my permission, well, I may trust my tenant to be reasonably quiet and non-destructive and responsible, but I don't necessarily trust my tenant in picking out another tenant. The original tenant is still legally on the hook for the rent, but enforcing such obligations can be expensive and time-consuming. My primary remedy is to go to court to evict a tenant, and that also is a pain.

Therefore, my risk exposure has increased with the subletting. I am at an increased chance of damage in excess of the deposit, having to go through eviction proceedings, and not getting my rent.

Re:Seems reasonable

[RockDoctor]

Shockingly, this implies that people should READ contracts that they have proposed to them BEFORE signalling their agreement to the terms of the contract by applying a signature to it (or in some other manner - let's not waste time on the old canard about a contract being as good as the paper it's written on).

I know it is a heresy in this millennial world of spoon-feeding with pre-digested pap but your granny's advice about reading contracts before you sign them remain good advice.

A note for myself : if I find myself in the position of being a landlord again (perfectly plausible) I should include a clause about butt-fucking the tenant (let's not be sexist here - I don't need to re-write the contract for different genders) for free every second Friday, and doing them bareback during contract negotiations. Just to see if they actually do read the fucking thing.

Re:Seems reasonable

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes. That's correct. As a person who is siphoning off of the less fortunate who cannot afford to own property, in large part because they are too busy paying your mortgage plus putting some money in your pocket every month, you take on some risk. That's the deal. I really don't give a fuck if you don't like it. You are a bottom feeder. Period.

Surprising breakout of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

And it even got posted to Slashdot.

The editors must be falling down on the job. Well, worse than usual.

Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Ummm

[guruevi]

These things are already legalized in areas and in contracts. The problem is that most people ignore those or don't know the restrictions exist/apply.

The same applies to people selling stuff on eBay and never reporting the income.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have to imagine. The apartment right next to mine has new tenants every few days. It's VERY annoying.

They're loud and always leave the place *around* the apartment trashed [and I strongly suspect they're the ones who write stuff on walls in elevator; we never had this problem until this one apartment on our floor turned to trash!].

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Like that one homeowner who got in trouble with the entire neighborhood for turning his property into a near-perpetual party house via AirBnB? I forget how many times it was said in the article that the cops had to be called to the address.

Re:Ummm

[TsuruchiBrian]

In it doesn't stop with airbnb. There are annoyances just from having neighbors that invite over people I don't like, or in many cases I just don't like the neighbors themselves. I think a simple solution would be to stop people I don;t like from living near me.

I like this idea of a law prohibiting guests for more than 2 days, but I'd like to see it reduced to 1 or even 0, and also have it apply to the owners of properties as well.

Double dipping

[BitZtream]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

You made your bed, fucking sleep in it.

Can't, it's being sub-let for the next four nights.

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Matheus]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[TsuruchiBrian]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[ADRA]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[PPH]

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?

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Double dipping

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don;t think hotels are subject to rent control for the rates they charge customers are they?

Re:Double dipping

[PPH]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Bite The Pillow]

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.

Re:Double dipping

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

double dipping much...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:double dipping much...

[phantomfive]

That is how AirBnB characterizes it, but it's not always like that. There are people who are renting out apartments, then posting them on AirBnB. They don't live in them, they get enough "visitors" to cover rent and more. In some cases they don't even see the visitor.

I like AirBnB, but it has to be legal.

Re:double dipping much...

[Anonymous Coward]

transient stays have a lot more wear and tear on accommodation and as such normally incurs a higher rent to cover the increased maintenance cost. In this instance the landlord is coping all the increased maintenance costs while not getting the benefits of the higher rates. Either don't sublet where you aren't already permitted to do so, or expect to cut the owner in, it isn't really unreasonable.

Re:double dipping much...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a characterization, that's what it is. The fact that the renter does or doesn't live there doesn't change the fact that they're still paying rent. If the management ask for additional fees on top of that rent they _are_ double dipping.

Re:double dipping much...

[TsuruchiBrian]

Wow. That sounds liek a great deal. Maybe the landlord should not renew the rental lease and just turn it into a permanent airbnb rental and make more money.

Re:double dipping much...

[phantomfive]

tbh I'll bet the AirBnB tenant takes better care of the place than an average tenant who just lives there.

Literal rent-seeking behavior...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're almost as bad as lawyers.

Default clause in contract

[SuneSpeg]

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.

Interesting precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Interesting precedent

[zlives]

no, just as a home owner the bank/mortgage owner doesn't not get a cut of your ABnB

Re:Interesting precedent

[magarity]

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

Re: Interesting precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more like using a rental car to do Uber. Or coming up with some elaborate scheme where you get taxis to drive you to pickup locations for other clients. In either case, giving the car rental agency or taxi driver a cut of that sounds reasonable.

Re:Interesting precedent

[david_thornley]

If you've bought a car and haven't paid it off, you own the car but if you break the agreement by not paying your loan the lender can repossess your car. If you've bought a house, and haven't paid it off, you own the house but if you break the agreement by not paying your mortgage the lender can repossess your house. In both cases, you are the legal owner. (There is the possibility of paying for the house and having ownership transferred after it's paid for, called "contract for deed", but it can cause all sorts of problems.)

An Uber driver who rents the car would be in a similar position.

Re:Interesting precedent

[Alioth]

Wrong comparison. You own the car, and you borrowed money to pay it.

The comparison would be - you rented a car of Hertz or whoever, and you want to drive it as an Uber car. If you look at car rental agreements, the contract will in pretty much all cases disallow this.

this is total BS..

[Anonymous Coward]

first off landlords in california are SLIME.. And the politicians whom support their slimy ways are to blame as well..
GREED SUCKS..
It turns one another against each other..
It bvreaks down society..
more so,, how is this news for nerds??
Lame, DHI at it again, slow news day..

Landlords should put this in their leases

[jonwil]

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.

Re:Landlords should put this in their leases

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do.

Guess what?

Re:Landlords should put this in their leases

[jonwil]

So if they are doing it, why aren't they kicking out tenants for breach-of-lease?

As well as eviction from their current properly, breaking the terms of the lease could very well (in Australia at least) get their name on a database of bad tenants that landlords/agents can consult and use to refuse them other properties in the future.

Analogy, please

[Sloppy]

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.

Re:Analogy, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap you are dreadful. Leave the basement.

Splitting the hair a different way

[enwewn]

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

[brian.stinar]

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.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

[ think that subletting is "illegal"]

I don't know if it's because Americans are dumbasses, but I noticed this was very common when I lived in The States. Lots of people would think a whole range of things are "illegal" when really it's just against "policy" or some contract or another.

Did I mention dumbasses?

Re:I am a Landlord

[k6mfw]

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,

Yeah but maybe they like to imagine numerous police in battle gear busting down doors with tear gas and flashbang grenades, all makes action footage for the evening news. In the real world, lease disagreements and mitigations are PITA and to outside observer it's really boring (unless it's elevated to The Judge Judy Show). I have no idea what this airbnd site is about, I guess I need to research it so I can make sensible arguments on the forums.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

A lease is a breach of contract.
A violation of a contract is a civil wrong.
A civil wrong is punishable in courts because of laws that say so.
So, breach of contract is a violation of law.
Therefore, a violation of the terms of one's lease is illegal.

Re:I am a Landlord

[brian.stinar]

"...imagine numerous police in battle gear busting down doors with tear gas and flashbang grenades, all makes action footage for the evening news."

That make me laugh.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this in the netherlands as well.

"Oh, that's a big knife. Aren't you afraid the police will get you?"
It's a standard category 2 or 4 knife.
As long as I don't go parading it out in the street it's fine.
Britain might be different. I hear they have bins to hand in kitchen knives.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

A view contrary to mainstream liberal opinion because of business experience.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

how rental property actually works

Please spare us the kindergarten stuff about lease agreements. This is not about how business contracts work, this is about landlords trying to double-dip. They collect rent and for any damage to the property the tenant is going to be held responsible. The tenant, on the other hand, bears all of the risks and expenses associated with short-term subletting: their furniture, personal belongings, bed bugs, additional cleaning, and the above mentioned damage to property they they will be held liable for.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

A policeman encounters an overly agitated man with an axe, who appears to be out of control. So the policeman confronted him: "Where did you get the axe". Without a reply the man proceeds to hack the policeman on the head. He is muttering under his breath while wiping off blood: "...where did you get it, where did you get it, BOUGHT AT A STORE"

Re:I am a Landlord

[Tukz]

It's a global issue, people confusing "legality" with "policy".
And if you correct them, saying it's not illegal it's just against policy, they usually reply with "you know what I mean smartass" or similar weak retort.

"Yes, I did know what you mean, but did you?" Dumbasses indeed, but it's not centralized to Americans.

Re:I am a Landlord

[Anonymous Coward]

has nothing to do with liberalism.
this may surprise you, but what he said is completely inline with mainstream liberalism, as well as conservatism, because the actually agree on simple things such as property rights. stop listening to idiots who don't know what theyre talking about, like the voices in your head.

Re:I am a Landlord

[phorm]

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.

Well said, and good on you for mentioning the elephant in the room. You can have lots of clauses in your rental agreement. For bad tenants, following up and dealing with violations can be a *nightmare*. Around here, even kicking out tenants that haven't paid rent is an exercise in pain, and while you're waiting for the arbitration process you get to worry about how much is going to be left of your place when they finally get evicted.

Criminal law doesn't come into effect until they violate the agreement, get evicted, get hit in (civil) court for not leaving, and then finally (maybe) get arrested for violating the court order...

Landlord is already getting paid the market rate

[zennling]

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?

Subletting is not Illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Subletting is not Illegal

[Chrisq]

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.

Possibly military accommodation, though I don't expect that comes up on airbnb that often

Landlords a re greedy assholes news at 11.

[Lumpy]

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.

Some opinions.

[meerling]

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.

But how do you justify double dipping?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But how do you justify double dipping?

[lorinc]

Basically they're demanding a cut of the revenue for doing _nothing_.

Dude, that's capitalism! You get a cut of the revenue for doing nothing because you own the damn thing. It's the ground principle of the whole idea: I own things, you work with them, I earn the money and pay you the minimum amount required for you to willingly continue working.

Sharing Business Model Assumes You Own Resource

[cmholm]

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.

Boiled down

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

This whole article can be boiled down to "We want a piece of the action".

CompStak wants a share of PlayStation revenues

[tlambert]

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...

Re:CompStak wants a share of PlayStation revenues

[cmholm]

That's an interesting thought, and it wouldn't surprise me if a landlord eventually tries to pull that act on commercial property via an inventive reading of the lease.

However, I'm reasonably sure Sony's lease allows them to pursue normal s/w business activities... unless they sublet to Sony Pictures for a pr0n shoot.

Re:CompStak wants a share of PlayStation revenues

[tlambert]

That's an interesting thought, and it wouldn't surprise me if a landlord eventually tries to pull that act on commercial property via an inventive reading of the lease.

This is pretty much how McDonalds franchising works: they pick the location for you, they buy the real estate, and then they lease it to you on the condition that you pay them franchise fees, rent, and so on on top of that.

It's also how most "incubators" and "accelerators" operate: they give you a location to work in exchange for an equity cut. The only real difference to the Sony scenario is that Sony wouldn't give them that cut, because Sony isn't a cash-strapped startup.

Most people renting housing are actually cash strapped, since if they weren't, they'd own instead of renting; living in an area to "make your nut" so you can retire to some other (cheaper) location is really an exception, unless you are in Silicon Valley or some other location on an H1-B from a country where the cost of living is generally much lower, and you can make the necessary cash reserves within the visa time restrictions.

The problem with this story, however, is that they are trying to ex post facto establish a covenant on the lease for subletting which wasn't prohibited in the original lease, based on expectation of use -- without changing the use to which the property is being put. By doing this, they are tacitly approving the use to which their tenant is putting the property.

If this went forward (hence my original move directly to a reductio ad absurdum argument), then there wold be no reason that a mortgage lender could not demand a similar cut ... and not just from private residences.

Consider that if Melon Bank (for example), held the mortgage on a Marriott Residence Inn complex, and decided that they wanted a cut of the income derived from guests renting from Marriott, how that would go over.

The only difference, between that case and the AirBNB rental case, is in who has the deep pockets for a legal fight, and who doesn't.

Greedy capitalists want a cut on everything.

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11.

Re:Seems unreasonable and greedy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.