Slashdot Mirror
Cities Struggling To Crack Down On Airbnb Renters (latimes.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes:
A California man has been charged with eight misdemeanors for renting several apartments under his own name, and then subletting them all. "Apartments in Santa Monica that might fetch $3500 a month as ordinary rentals, are worth three or four times that on a daily or weekly basis," reports one newsweekly, and the subletter notes that he only received two years of probation plus a $3,500 fine, "what one of my properties makes in a month."
On Wednesday three prominent U.S. Senators "called for a regulatory probe into whether short-term rental websites such as Airbnb are taking housing away from long-term renters and pushing up prices," but the number of Americans planning to use Airbnb this summer has apparently already doubled since last year.
The Hotel and Lodging Association of Alaska is complaining that the state's renters "are not required to follow the same state and federal safety mandates that are required for other hotels and lodges creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers." But it seems like currently the only pushback is coming from local and city officials, like the short-term rental rules that Airbnb is currently fighting in their home city of San Francisco. For example, in Maine, the owner of one of Portland's 425 rentals units is now fighting a city order "demanding that he stop renting out part of his home through Airbnb. "Portland has a limited staff to enforce zoning rules, so it comes down on the most egregious cases, said City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Grondin."
I laughed at the quote from the City Hall spokeswoman. "It's kind of like speeding on the highway. You know it is illegal, you do it anyway, and you get caught."
The Hotel and Lodging Association of Alaska is complaining that the state's renters "are not required to follow the same state and federal safety mandates that are required for other hotels and lodges creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers." But it seems like currently the only pushback is coming from local and city officials, like the short-term rental rules that Airbnb is currently fighting in their home city of San Francisco. For example, in Maine, the owner of one of Portland's 425 rentals units is now fighting a city order "demanding that he stop renting out part of his home through Airbnb. "Portland has a limited staff to enforce zoning rules, so it comes down on the most egregious cases, said City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Grondin."
I laughed at the quote from the City Hall spokeswoman. "It's kind of like speeding on the highway. You know it is illegal, you do it anyway, and you get caught."
When I speed, I'm not forcing people with smaller cars off of the expressway and onto dirt roads, far far away.
These people are driving up the rents and prices of homes in communities, while not being restricted by the laws that hotels/motels/holidayinns have to follow. So for those who want decent housing at decent pricing, they have to live far away, or in worse areas.. driving the next people to live farther and worse-er.
Crank up the fines and forbid people from renting at more than one location.
Start at $10,000 per violation.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
not like the landlord is there every day. some of them own property and live in another state and simply collect the rent
If by "little people", you mean folks that can buy 425 properties, you and I have very different definitions... The article is all about the abusing that people with plenty of money are doing to a system would have worked if it was only done on a small scale.
In Soviet America, land owns you!
Well, it sure is pushing down prices for hotels. Which is probably why crony capitalists get all pushed out of shape about this. As for housing prices and the housing shortage, AirBnB isn't responsible for that, it's zoning laws, rent control, and the interference of the federal government in the mortgage markets. But, hey, leave it to the usual suspects (Warren, Feinstein) to first wreck people's lives and then blame "big evil corporations" for the mess they created.
Be it Uber or AirBNB, the pattern is the same — the old way of doing things is struggling against the technology-enabled new way.
We lived through this, when automobiles replaced horse-drawn transport, we are witnessing it now...
It is decidedly no less "safe" than the overpriced "real" hotels/motels. And it is only unfair because of the costs of government-regulations, which those "real" establishments have always passed on to their customers.
With the immediately-available customer ratings offered by the new companies, the government regulators are simply no longer necessary. If "fairness" is a concern, the hotels should be left alone — and unregulated — too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The reason housing prices are high and there is a housing shortage in desirable areas are simple: government keeps pushing up demand for housing in such areas through various housing subsidies (low income rent programs, Section 8, government support of mortgages), while at the same time discouraging the creation of new supply through price controls (rent control, affordable housing unit requirements, special taxes on developers) and regulations (zoning, usage restrictions, etc.).
I know, dear Elizabeth, you're just a greedy lawyer and a rabble rousing politician, but please, learn some basic economics: you and people like you are responsible for the housing shortage. And restricting the ability of people to rent out their places for short periods, as on AirBnB, will make the housing shortage worse. In fact, the reason AirBnB is likely so popular in the first place is because AirBnB hosts don't have to deal with all the other rental regulation bullshit people like you have created; in a free housing market, AirBnB would be much less attractive, since landlords could get similar income without all the risk associated with an unpredictable succession of short term renters. So, if you restrict AirBnB rentals, people will probably either leave their apartments empty, or they will convert them into expensive luxury condos. See, Elizabeth, you can certainly stop people from engaging in some economic transactions by wielding your big senatorial stick, but you cannot force them to engage in economic transactions against their will.
uber is a fake taxi, avoids taxes, and avoids regulations and requirements designed to protect the public.
airbnb is a fake hotel, avoids taxes, and avoids regulations and requirements designed to protect the public
The cities and towns who want to regulate this and Uber and the like are doing so not because there is some sort of crisis or need for regulation. By their own admission, they do not have control over it now and yet there are very few reports of problems, which strongly suggests there aren't many issues.
No, they don't want to solve anything. They're just mad that somebody is doing something without asking permission and paying for licenses and other crap. An awful lot of government is devoted to making people ask for permission to do things and making them pay fees to get that permission.
If people realize they can do things just fine without permits, then all hell will break loose of people doing stuff on their own for free! How can bloated bureaucratic governments survive and justify their own existence if people just DO stuff?
Sig for hire.
This is definitely one of those cases where technology has rendered moot the underlying reality that forced the need for regulation in the first place.
I disagree, technology is simply providing a new way for people to evade the laws and recreate the same problems that -- long ago -- caused the laws to be created.
Now, there is some virtue to "shaking things up", but the underlying issues here are not actually computational at all, they are issues about monetary-incentives, damage and accountability, and various tragedies of the commons.
Maybe there is no problem at all. Except for the big hotel owners who now encounter some competition.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
So if you can't afford to buy a house in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the world, then there is just no point in investing at all?
Your words, not mine.
I have relatives nearing retirement with $0 in IRA/401k, living in a trailer park, who think exactly the same way. But they can always find the money to go to Starbucks and buy the latest iPhone.
Good to know you're much far more clever and deserving than those feckless trailer-dwelling proles.
The landlord rents out unfurnished space on a long term lease. It's a passive business, a way to make money from ownership of capital.
The Airbnb host hires out a fully furnished, immediately habitable living space on a very short term. It's an active business, a way to make money from the application of labor to relatively little capital.
The "natural state" is me hitting you and taking your stuff.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
There are very very few members of the public who don't like or have a problem with AirBNB. Any government that bans them is clearly doing this on the behest of the hotels and other such businesses. This is a perfect example of government officials working for the rich elites and not for the people who voted them into power and pay the taxes that let these thugs have jobs.
Why do we continue to put up with law after law after law that is not in our best interests.
Is AirBNB perfect, nope. But any problems can be regulated to solve any problems for the greater good. For instance if someone had three houses on a quiet street that they AirBNB'd for party houses, then you deal with that issue. But a blanket ban is just anti citizenry which would be an action only take if there was some inducement or incentive for the lawmakers.