Slashdot Mirror
Airbnb Has Sued Its Hometown Of San Francisco (cnn.com)
Robert Mclean, reporting for CNN:Airbnb is taking its hometown to federal court. The company has filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco, objecting to short-term rental rule changes approved by its Board of Supervisors. A new ordinance set to take effect in late July would require all Airbnb hosts to register with the city. If they do not, Airbnb would be fined up to $1,000 a day for each listing, putting the burden on the company to make sure each listing is legal. But the city's $50 registration process is analog enough to turn off many hosts. It can't be completed online and requires submitting all the documents in person. Airbnb contends the new rule violates the Communications Decency Act, Stored Communications Act and the First Amendment.
Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb must adapt its business model otherwise they are simply externalizing the costs associated with fraud after they neglect due diligence in verifying the legality of their listings. Inevitably this is more about publicizing that SF relies on a paper process, but the paper process has several advantages in terms of forcing residents to be local in order to rent out their property without actually rezoning it as a hotel or rental property and paying appropriate fees to account for increased traffic and sewage volume, etc.
I've never been to San Francisco, but everything I've heard about it has been negative. It sounds like it has more social, economic, and political problems than nearly any other major American city. What is SF actually like? Is it really as degenerate as it sounds like it is?
I hope trump becomes president so that he will go against their families. Because that's what they deserve. They destroy our jobs, and obama is just doing nothing.
How about instead, San Francisco politicians pay a $50 registration fee which includes an IQ and ethics test?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
What if the City of San Francisco required renters to also register their social media accounts with the City Hall — a government's attempt we roundly condemned just yesterday?
How is this requirement to register different in principle? There being a $50 registration fee makes it worse, not better...
Wow, that's an idea... How about a /. rule forcing anonymous cowards to submit their drivel on paper as well? To discourage control-freaks from living?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Funny, how a registration requirement is Ok with people sometimes, whereas at other times it is an intolerable "invasion of privacy". Papers, please...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sack up and deal with it Airbnb
So a company should comply with any regulation at all without complaint?
That other companies should be able to impose regulations in order to capture the industry by excluding any possible competition?
My take on it - any proposed regulation should identify a problem or opportunity*. There should be fairly solid numbers on the problem - IE X amount of criminal calls, complaints, accidents, and such per year. The regulation should identify how much it's expected to cost. There should be a metric to identify whether the regulation is fulfilling it's purpose adequately.
If the regulation turns out to be more expensive than anticipated or doesn't solve the problem in line with it's costs, it should be eliminated.
*And no, 'government makes more money' isn't an opportunity.
I don't read AC A human right
They might not have been designed for this, but they are tax/regulation evasion schemes. But it's the only way for the Bates Motel to get any business these days. And Norman drives for Uber now.
AirBnB should set up an online site to allow its members to perform the registration process, and once a week prints off the forms and sends them to City Hall with a check
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Some good reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
I'm sure there are more, but I only had a few moments to consider it. Conversely, the $50, and fill out a form seem like remarkably low burdens to impose. I mean, "I'm suing because this form isn't online" is pretty stupid.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I think the SCOTUS BS undue burden ruling on abortion yesterday should be taken and run with. I think any regulation where the state does not have solid evidence is effective at addressing an explicitly stated objective which restricts someones rights in anyway ( In this case AirBnb's right to advertise rent able units ) should be automatically considered unconstitutional.
Lets exploit this shabby reasoning to its max.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
your a doosh
What if the City of San Francisco required renters to also register their social media accounts with the City Hall — a government's attempt we roundly condemned just yesterday?
How is this requirement to register different in principle? There being a $50 registration fee makes it worse, not better...
Wow, that's an idea... How about a /. rule forcing anonymous cowards to submit their drivel on paper as well? To discourage control-freaks from living?
Talk about drivel!
The short-term rental market is filled with scammers and Airbnb has made it even easier and more lucrative than doing it on Craigslist. The City of SF is right and it would make me comfortable to rent one of those places if I can see that the owner is in fact renting it and not some scam artist.
Seriously? The Communications Decency Act? How the fuck does registering/taxing hotel rooms violate the Communications Decency Act?
Dear Airbnb: Hotels are regulated for very good reasons. Please fuck off now.
while the sky high rents on SF are not the fault of AirBnB, they sure as hell have contributed to them. People renting just to play unregulated hotel on AirBnb is taking properties away from local residents and helping to jack up already exorbitant rental prices. We have people charging an entire months rent of their entire just for a room, which is against the law and we even have businesses renting apartments to rent out at a premium on AirBnb
This shit needs to stop
The city of San Francisco receives federal funds (for something or another, I assure you), and therefore is required to comply with the paperwork reduction act. It is illegal for them to require paper forms where an electronic alternative would not be onerous to implement. Since the City already has many e-portals for filing of paperwork, it would not be onerous for them to implement e-filing for this ordinance.
Therefore, SF is violating federal law and should be barred from receiving any federal funds until they cease violating it.
How To Avoid The Internet's Hottest Scam: Fake Vacation Rentals
No citation for some reason... Maybe, because it is simply not true?
You're an idiot.
In Minneapolis/Saint Paul, all TNC drivers are required to present their car for inspection annually
But the DRIVERS are required to do it there, not Lyft. If this were the same thing Air BnB is having to do in SF, Lyft would be required to bring in the cars for inspection, not the drivers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The latest round of tech companies (Airbnb, Lyft, Uber, etc) spend so much of their money fighting lawsuits versus developing an innovative product.
Dear Airbnb: Hotels are regulated for very good reasons
And those are??? You make a pretty big assumption that the regulations help consumers instead of offering ample opportunity for graft from the local government. Which I guess you support... I guess that makes sense though as foul-month people tend to be among the most corrupt and uncaring.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
TFA states that AirBnB isn't pissed because their users are being asked to register. AirBnB is pissed because AirBnB is being held responsible for the USER'S lack of registration. AirBnB actually helped pass this legislation, but now the SF government wants AirBnB to do the government's dirty work of enforcement by holding AirBnB liable for the actions (or inaction) of its users.
That is a violation of the Communications Decency Act: you can't hold the website liable for what someone else contributes... such as an AirBnB USER listing a rental in violation of a local registration law.
That is also a (potential) violation of the Stored Communications Act: the government is limited in what it can request a website to turn over to the government without going through the legal process... such as the name of a USER the government THINKS might be in violation of their registration law so the government can turn around and fine AirBnB.
This is also a (potential) violation of the First Amendment: the government is directly controlling what AirBnB can/cannot post on its own website.
There are a number of cities that rely on the tourism industry that are undergoing negative changes due to AirBnb.
More rooms are available -> Hotels cant charge as much for rooms due to competition, and collect less taxes for the city. So the city has more tourists to support, but less tax revenue
Real estate prices go up -> Long term residents have incentive to sell/rent, renters have incentive to live elsewhere
It's similar to gentrification, but instead of replacing poor people with yuppies, its replacing residents with absentee landlords. There are increases in tourist dollars to local businesses, but less money from local residents. The overall effect is unhealthy for the city as a whole, since it drives residents away. Ultimately a city cant survive without locals who actually live in it.
Try exercising 2nd Amendment rights...
The paperwork, etc. required is very onerous and invasive, requiring disclosure of otherwise HIPPA protected medial information.
While I'm complaining, I'd like to say we should drop the invasive notion of drug tests for welfare recipients. Instead, just normalize the requirements with those for concealed carry: show up in person, with multiple forms of approved ID (citizenship and residency), get fingerprinted, fill out forms disclosing previous felonies and mental disorders, affirm that the benefits are for yourself or dependent children, (remember: lying about any answers is a felony!), have a wants&warrants background check run, sit for another ID photo; repeat the process every few years as required. As it's for welfare, we'll waive the non-inconsequential fee normally associated with firearms licenses.
As a benefit(!) each recipient would have an additional ID to use for voting ID requirements.
"It can't be completed online and requires submitting all the documents in person." ... makes me feel like "Fuck you, Board of Supervisors"
Something I forgot to mention in my comprehensive response (above) - There's no reason to assume those 33,000 employees would be anything close to fulltime. They could easily be contractors paid piece rate, or 1/10 time employees.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
It would probably be cheaper to AirBnB to just create and hand over a system to SF that automates the registration and payment process. For a tech company that would be trivial, compared to government bureaucracy. Offer SF a solution for online registration and payments and you can probably even get them to pay a small fee to have AirBnB administer the site for them. Happens all the time,.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
His what?
"Airbnb contends the new rule violates the Communications Decency Act, Stored Communications Act and the First Amendment."
When has law and/or common sense stopped the City of San Francisco from doing what it wanted?
I don't see why they are complaining - they can simply streamline the process by digitizing the form themselves and submitting on behalf of their hosts. If they want to be shrewd they can even subsidize the fee.
I don't see what AirBnB is being so obtuse about this.
I know this will be an unpopular comment, especially with the group of people who use "statist" as a slur of choice, but lets be honest - Airbnb, Uber, and the whole so-called "sharing" economy needs to stop mincing words to get out of paying and adhering to regulations that everyone else has to do so. They choose to use the word "disruptive", but what it really comes down to is running an unlicensed hotel or so-called "gypsy cab" service.
Uber (and most other competitors) isn't a "ride share" service (ie I'm going where you are, let me pick you up), but a full fledged taxi/sedan service that you just happen to call or hail via an app. How they manage their entire business is evidence of this. However, they claim they're "ride sharing" and thus get around all of the regulations on what it means to be a ride-for-hire business in areas where they operate. AirBNB is no better, with legitimate "couchsurfing" being replaced with running unlicensed hotels/BNBs. Hell, there are many areas where it has impacted the real-estate market because now businesses and individuals alike are beginning to buy out residential property and then post it on AirBNB which means legitimate tenants are going to find housing even less affordable. Prior to the loophole being exploited, it would have not been possible to run short term rentals/hotels in these areas, without having to have the insurance and inspections required, collect taxes if necessary in said jurisdiction etc... but hey, they're "just a disruptive app for the sharing economy".
On Slashdot and elsewhere we rightly become irate when we hear that governments use "Because its happening on a computer, its somehow worse/different/not bound by the same rights and protections", don't we? When someone gets a decades long prison sentence for some sort of hacking issue tried under RICO? When your digital correspondence can be grabbed without a warrant in a way postal mail could never be? So why are we okay when some corporate entity uses that same excuse to justify this scam? If you want to run a hotel or limo/car service, that's great. However, you have to follow the same standards as everyone else. This doesn't mean we shouldn't change and modernize those rules, but if you suggest that regulation itself is somehow the enemy or that we should just give these businesses a pass, then you're complicit in pushing this nation even further over the ledge for the goods of corporate profit, damn the consequences.
The suit against AirBNB is valid and they exist and in fact, profit, exclusively through being a "wink wink nudge nudge couchsurfing site". Now they're whining because the "compromise" they asked for, which would still allow them to basically exploit short term rentals in a way you couldn't and frankly shouldn't in most residential zones, could actually require them to do some due diligence on their part? They should be thankful it isn't more dramatic legislation. I'd favor putting an end to these loopholes all together, forcing AirBNB (and those that list their properties within) to comply with bed-and-breakfast/hotel ownership regulations. This, in hand with modernizing those regulations and making them both more sensible and easier to understand and comply should make a better experience for everyone.
Tech companies and those behind them seem to comport themselves as being "better, more socially conscious" than the "bad, old money professions" such as finance and the like, but they share the same "fuck everyone else, I should be able to 'disrupt' the industry, externalize my risk/costs onto the public to reap in even larger private profits" attitude. Driving a Tesla while you foist another weight on an already overburdened, affordable housing market is no better than going to four and five figure a plate galas for poverty, while your business practices put millions into said poverty in the first place. Corporate and financial interests must be monitored and if necessary, cowed, for the