Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Airbnb Has Sued Its Hometown Of San Francisco (cnn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the family-matters dept.

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.

28 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Frivilous Law Suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most municipalities do not have the ability to submit registration forms on-line. Sack up and deal with it Airbnb. Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon but you are wasting tax payer money just to be a dick.

    2. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point is that politicians in San Francisco are purposefully imposing onerous regulations on Airbnb because they're owned by the hotel and hospitality companies who want to throw as many roadblocks at Airbnb as they can.

      Just like the taxi companies and cab-driver unions and their pols did with Uber

    3. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uber IS a cab company.

    4. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point is that politicians in San Francisco are purposefully imposing onerous regulations, Period

      This is the socialist utopia you all wished for. Now that you are familiar with the libertarian framework, exposed by the fast pace of the Internet (unregulated wasteland of Somalia), you are suddenly complaining about onerous regulations for the sake of incumbent businesses.

      FYI, they will dress it up in "safety and security" before too long, to make it more palatable. First rape, murder, assault or other crime is all that is needed (never mind that those things happen all the time in hotels and motels).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people keep trying to make this about the hotel industry? Airbnb is fucking up the entire real estate market which is already horrible enough in SF of all places. Landlords are turning apartments into hotel rooms to make a bit more money, reducing housing availability and driving up prices in a city that already has a desperate shortage of it.

    6. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      reducing housing availability and driving up prices in a city that already has a desperate shortage of it.

      Really? There's a black market for housing in San Francisco because people can't buy it on the open market for any price? (This is an objective sign of a true shortage, just ask Venezuela.)

      No, I think it's far more likely that the "shortage" is actually just your way of saying that the prices are higher than you think they ought to be.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Have you asked yourself why that's happening?

      City laws prohibiting new development maintain the "desperate shortage" of housing. And city laws capping rents makes short-term rentals more lucrative than long-term rentals. The real estate markets were already fucked up there by those laws before Airbnb even existed.

      The market wants to fix it by adding more housing units but is prevented by laws prohibiting development. This causes prices to increase, which normally acts as an incentive for more development. Since the city doesn't want that, it caps rents. This doesn't make the problem go away though. All it does is shift the problem from one of price into one of availability - a lot more people want to live there than there is available housing. This results in a larger population of people wanting to live there but unable to. Which leads to more people wanting to visit. Which leads to more demand for short-term rentals like hotels and Airbnb.

      In other words, Airbnb is a symptom of meddling in the real estate market (by the local government). Not the cause as you're insinuating.

    8. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      Why? I'd hazard for the same reasons that some vocal people keep defending Uber and attacking legal taxi services. Because someone said "disruptive technology"? Maybe because they're libertarian and like to see corporations giving the government the finger? I'm not really sure, but it has all of the same flavor.

    9. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Holi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should people follow building codes? Why should hotels and restaurants follow health codes?
      Because we as a people have decided to enact laws that require them to follow the rules to make things safer for us, and because people have proven time and time again, that on their own they will cut corners to make an extra buck.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    10. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by gmack · · Score: 2

      I defend Uber because I can pay online and have a car arrive wherever I am in 3-7 minutes. If I take a taxi I have to call, wait 15-30 minutes with no feedback about what is happening and then the driver will get all whiny if I want to pay by bank or credit card. So if I take a taxi, I have to plan ahead and have taken money from the bank machine before hand and also call a half hour in advance, making it useless for moments where I missed the bus and still want to arrive at work on time.

    11. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's all the city's fault. There is a desperate shortage of housing in SF, and I personally hope it gets far, far, far worse.

      The shortage is caused by the government itself, and all the NIMBY regulations. If there's not enough rental units, then WHY are there no giant high-rise apartment buildings being built, like you see in other big cities? Because incumbent property owners don't want "the view" to be messed up. Well, if you refuse to build anything higher than 2 stories, then there's only so many apartments you can pack into a given space.

      I say let the housing market in SF implode. At some point, catastrophic change will be forced. If service workers can't live in SF, too bad: they don't have to! They can live somewhere else. And if that means they can't reasonably commute into SF to work, no problem! That means local SF business will have to go without workers, or they'll have to pay them six-figure salaries to come work there. If that means all the local businesses in SF (like grocery stores and restaurants) have to shut down, no problem. At some point, this will cause a complete implosion of the property values in the area (because whoTF wants to live in a city full of ultra-expensive housing and absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to shop or even get any food?), and change will be forced. The sooner, the better too.

    12. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      been to San Francisco? Where would they build new housing? They can't make the houses or apartments any narrower than they already are

      One look at Seattle would answer your question. Any lot downtown that used to have a building less than 5 stories now has a highrise in some state of construction, or recently finished. There are about 50 highrise buildings (depending on how you define that) currently under construction, and the 5-10 story buildings are being eyed by developers for replacement now.

      You can always go up, assuming the city lets you. Seattle lets you (at least in some areas, there are height restrictions in some places, but it's the minority), SF doesn't.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Frivilous Law Suit by lgw · · Score: 2

      Let me think of the things I want in an Earthquake zone.

      Look, if you want high-density residential complexes, pick somewhere else.

      Tokyo would disagree. I'd bet more people live in high rises in Tokyo than in all of SF (given Tokyo is about 10x the size of SF).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Statists gonna state... by mi · · Score: 2

    Compliance with local regulations is the bread and butter of running an actual business. Airbnb must adapt its business model

    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...

    the paper process has several advantages in terms of forcing residents to be local in order to rent out their property

    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.
  3. Some privacy more equal than other by mi · · Score: 2

    Your first amendment rights are not being trampled upon

    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.
    1. Re:Some privacy more equal than other by mi · · Score: 2

      What's the "privacy" issue?

      Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters — with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented.

      Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine — no warrant needed.

      Because it was the government, the information is now public records and/or subject to FOIA-requests by anyone, not just law enforcement.

      Or even 1st amendment?

      Privacy is not explicitly protected by its own Amendment, but by several of them combined — including the First.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Some privacy more equal than other by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      have to register

      Any government-registration requirement is highly suspect and the vast majority of them are unwarranted and provide no tangible benefit in exchange for the very real loss of privacy and other burdens.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Some privacy more equal than other by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Filling out the form. Informing the government of your being one of AirBNB renters -- with details about yourself and the apartment(s) being rented. Because you let somebody know all this "willingly", the information is available to the police under the Third Party Doctrine -- no warrant needed.

      You mean like when you tell AirBnB all the same information and they post it publicly to advertise your rental? You mean like that "willingly"? You mean like the pictures of the inside of the rental with a picture of the owner, like you can see on the AirBnB website? That kind of "willingly"? I bet the SF registration doesn't require pictures of either.

      "Psst, AirBnB, I want to be a renter under your system, but keep it a secret, ok? Don't let anyone know. I like my privacy."

      Because it was the government, the information is now public records

      I wonder if the wayback machine archives AirBnB pages?

      AirBnB has no First Amendment claim here. Nobody is stopping them from speaking, and even were the government limiting their "free speech" in some way, there is a long tradition and precedent of commercial speech being restricted. And SF has a vested interest in making sure that the AirBnB renters are not commercial operations instead of private individuals.

  4. Please, it's Frivilous Regulation by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Please, it's Frivilous Regulation by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some modern companies seem to complain excessively about regulations that people have been living with for years without complaint. We've seen Uber complain that their taxi service is sometimes regulated like a taxi service, requiring commercial driver's licenses, commercial insurance, and background checks (nobody's applying medallion limits to Uber).

      You seem to be saying that regulation shouldn't be applied when it's actually needed, but rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it. You're also calling for metrics that don't really exist. It's usually not possible to directly compare results with regulation and results without regulation over time. Consider background checks for taxi drivers: the idea is to reduce crime perpetrated by the drivers, but there really isn't much measurable other than how many people failed the check. In order to see if it reduces crime, it would be necessary to take some of the people failing the check and put them into cabs over a period of time and see how many passengers were crime victims.

      Life requires judgment calls. If you don't like the calls your elected representatives are making, campaign against them in elections. If you get no traction, then it may well be that everyone else is happy with the situation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Please, it's Frivilous Regulation by reanjr · · Score: 2

      You've completely missed the purpose of the regulation. Airbnb is driving up housing costs because people are purchasing homes and then renting them continuously as hotels. The company is providing meaningful support for people to circumvent existing zoning laws. The regulations are an attempt to put a stop to that.

  5. There are some good reasons for this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some good reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

    1. It helps for planning purposes to know how many houses are homes and how many are short term rentals.
    2. This helps catch people whose lease forbids short-term rentals (e.g. in rent-controlled or subsidized apartments) who are using Air BnB
    3. People are dodging the taxes associated with (and already in place) for short term rentals
    4. Short term rentals often conflict with long term sustainable housing. Which SF has an issue with already. Limiting the stock of this is an important aspect of city planning.
    5. Renting property can be dangerous (there are sleeping/vulnerable travelers there) so being able to involve the government in revoking a license is a good thing. It can also be used to deny people with sufficiently criminal records.

    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!
    1. Re:There are some good reasons for this by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sometimes they need to check your ID against the ID on the paperwork, or see a copy of your lease, or similar. Things you cannot do over the internet

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. Oh really by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    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
  7. Real estate and tourism by PraiseBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Real estate and tourism by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I don't see the problem, or why the city needs to survive. In the case of SanFran at least, this is all the city government's doing anyway, because they refuse to allow any new construction. If there's such a shortage of housing, they need to be building high-rises. But they don't want to do that, so fuck 'em. Let the city die.

  8. Re:How dare they by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    I'm told it's getting pretty hard to find people willing to commute into the City to work a kitchen three days a week.

    That's an easy fix. Convert the part-time job into a full-time job and pay more. If that isn't doable, the restaurant owner need to rethink the business model and/or move to a city with available labor.