Hotel CEO Openly Celebrates Higher Prices After Anti-Airbnb Law Passes (washingtonpost.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post: A hotel executive said a recently-passed New York law cracking down on Airbnb hosts will enable the company to raise prices for New York City hotel rooms, according to the transcript of the executive's words on a call with shareholders last week. The law, signed by New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo on Friday, slaps anyone who lists their apartment on a short-term rental site with a fine up to $7,500. It "should be a big boost in the arm for the business," Mike Barnello, chief executive of the hotel chain LaSalle Hotel Properties, said of the law last Thursday, "certainly in terms of the pricing." Barnello's comment adds fuel the argument, made repeatedly by Airbnb and its proponents, that a law that was passed in the name of affordable housing also allows established hotels to raises prices for consumers. It was included in a memo written by Airbnb's head of global policy, Chris Lehane, to the Internet Association, a tech trade group, reviewed by the Washington Post. LaSalle, a Bethesda, MD-based chain, owns hotels around the country, including New York City. The memo is the latest volley in a bitter fight that has pit the hotel industry, unions, and affordable housing advocates against Airbnb and its supporters. At the heart of the fight is a debate over the societal value of the Airbnb platform and its role in the economy of cities throughout the world. The question is whether Airbnb has been a net benefit, by enabling middle class city-dwellers to make extra money by renting out their homes, or whether it has had the unintended consequence of exacerbating affordable housing crises in expensive cities such as New York and Los Angeles.

Comments

except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[known_coward_69]

here in NYC data from AirBnb showed that most of the apartments for rent for always available for rent because the owners were making more money on it then renting them out as housing. in a lot of cases it was affordable housing with special tax breaks being used as a money maker

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

AirBNB is further annihilating affordable housing in the urban core in many cities.

Personally, as a home owner in a downtown location who actually lives at the property, I am glad our association agreement banned them. I don't know if it would hold up in court, but the last thing I want is a home I bought legitimately to live to become a neighboring unit to flophouses for partiers who are going to ruin the community for people who actually live there instead of trying to make money off the property.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[jellomizer]

However the law shouldn't had been such a blanket ban, but more targeted towards people who abuse the service. Stipulations such as a minimum living time, in the building by the owners say 200 days a year. Rules to insure that safety and equality measures are taken place as AirBnB does have a problem with people excluding minorities. In essence to make sure people who are using the service are not playing by a different set of rules.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck enforcing 1000 "good idea" stipulations. You can't do that feasibly, so it is just an excuse to let things continue as is, which isn't legitimate.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[lucm]

Airbnb and hosts make money at the expense of the neighbors. That's abuse by itself.

You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb. What can you do? It's a new temporary tenant every fee days so even if you complain this start overs the following week.

Hotels are equipped for this and designed for this. Residential buildings are not. It's unfair to put this burden on neighbors just so the host and a startup can make a few bucks.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[mi]

Yet again, the old truth manifests itself. When you meddle with the free market, you only make things worse... The cental planning of command-and-control economies — such as that of New York City — is not only less fair, but also less efficient, than free market capitalism.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[shaitand]

"AirBNB is further annihilating affordable housing in the urban core in many cities."

Good, people need to spread out a bit more. The urban core of most cities is far far too dense with ridiculous ideas of what counts as healthy. If you spread out a bit in this massive country we've got here you might find you can buy a home that is detached from your neighbors with walls and an airgap that makes what they are doing far less big a deal.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[shaitand]

Ridiculous, rules against discrimination make sense when you are talking about a large corporation like a property management company or the like, when you are talking about an individual choosing who they trust in their home they should be entitled to select people on any basis they like.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Archangel Michael]

What? And live in "racist, homophobic, religious flyover country" that is going to vote Trump?

TRIGGERED!!!!

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[thegarbz]

You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb.

All your airbnb's turn into a 24/7 party? What they hell are you guys doing? Most of the time I see AirBnb's empty during the day and having several passed out tourists snoring in beds at night. I challenge your assertion that the place suddenly turns into a party room.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[shaitand]

Sorry but you could just as easily have someone move in who likes to party all the time. If you don't like hearing the sound of other people you shouldn't have packed yourself like a sardine into condo tower with them. There is a great big world out there, in most of it even a townhouse is just an apartment and you'd ONLY buy one as part of the building full of them you were buying in order to rent it out to others.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[thegarbz]

This is just it. My parents run an airbnb in Australia for the most part they see their customers for an hour or two in the evening, and then briefly in the morning for breakfast. The rest of the time they are passed out from their busy travel days.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

Personally, as a home owner in a downtown location who actually lives at the property, I am glad our association agreement banned them.

And you ought to be free to make such decisions for your private associations. You ought not to be free to impose such restrictions on other property owners.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb.

Condo towers are private associations; they can ban AirBnB for their association if they want. They can also assess steep fines against association members whose use of their condo disturbs the neighbors. It is exactly those kinds of neighbors that share walls and whose actions strongly affect each other that are bound together in private associations. Therefore, there is no need to impose AirBnB regulations as a matter of law to address your concerns.

Hotels are equipped for this and designed for this. Residential buildings are not. It's unfair to put this burden on neighbors just so the host and a startup can make a few bucks.

You aren't denying the startup "a few bucks", you are denying your neighbors a lot of money. Now, within a condo association that is perfectly fine if you pass such restrictions according to its CC&Rs with the majority agreement of the other association members; that's what associations exist for.

But trying to impose such restrictions on other condo buildings that you aren't part of and don't share interior walls with just isn't justified.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

In addition to this, landlords are frequently at risk for the behavior of these temporary tenants who represent a higher risk to the property than leased and vetted tenants

And landlords ought to be free to impose restrictions on subletting in their rental contracts, and evict tenants that fail to comply with such terms.

It also doesn't matter that landlords were forbidding the practice, as people were ignoring these rules

The problem there is that the landlords cannot then take the obvious enforcement action of evicting the tenants because of so-called "tenant protection laws".

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

I would imagine that the condo association should then hold the condo owner accountable for the behavior of his or her Airbnb guests. There is no need for the government to get involved.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

While they certainly should not be getting "affordable housing" tax breaks if they are renting them out on Airbnb, I am not sure why it is anybody's business that the property owners are making more money by renting them out short-term rather than long term. My observations are that the more the government gets involved in making things "affordable" the less affordable those things are.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

that's why California totally isn't the 6th largest economy in the world.
Chicago's economy totally isn't the size of Switzerland.
and NYC totally isn't larger than all of Canada .
such yuuuge failures, the lot of them, amirite? /s

I'm sure you also marveled at how huge the Soviet economy was and what a huge city Moscow was. See, it's easy to build a huge economy if you bleed others dry to pay for it.

And California, Chicago, and NYC also have huge fiscal problems, huge inequality, and huge social problems.

https://www.brookings.edu/rese...

These cities and states are doing well for a powerful political and social elite, who use government interference in the market to enrich themselves. In fact, you left out the biggest example of them all: Washington DC, whose wealth has gone through the roof under recent, increasingly corrupt administrations.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

Libertarians object to subsidized housing in the first place. If you don't subsidize housing, you don't have to worry about people renting out subsidized housing on AirBnB.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[sed quid in infernos]

And there is strong evidence that current zoning policies have contributed a lot to the unaffordability of housing in cities. That's not to say that all zoning regulation is bad. But as implemented, they make it much harder to afford housing in many places.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Opportunist]

So I guess you're not going to complain about me opening that rendering plant next to your home, right? You wouldn't dream of imposing such restrictions on property owners, did I get that right?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Opportunist]

Your condo contract doesn't include a rule that you, as the owner, are held responsible for all problems your potential renters cause? Odd. Mine does.

This problem has a very easy solution.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[shaitand]

Again, maybe spend less time trying to make other people use their property the way you want to them and more time doing what you can do entirely on your own and relocating to a place where it just isn't an issue for you.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Opportunist]

And have you seen the walls in the condos? The snoring! THE SNORING!!!

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Swave An deBwoner]

I'd do that in a second except that it would turn my 40 minute commute via bus and subway (during which I can read or zone out) into a probably longer commute by car (during which I would have to pay rapt attention or risk killing myself or someone else).

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Swave An deBwoner]

AirBnB's propaganda misstates what the law says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/technology/new-york-passes-law-airbnb.html

Since 2010, it has been illegal in New York to rent out a whole apartment for fewer than 30 days. But some tenants and landlords have ignored those rules and have been using Airbnb to rent out their apartments for much shorter periods.

The law does not preclude you from offering a room for rent on AirBnB in an apartment you continue to reside in, i.e., while you are present. Bottom line is that you must continue to live there during the rental period, sort of like taking on a short-term roommate. Perfectly legal.

The law doesn't even preclude you from subletting or renting your entire apartment on AirBnB, provided that the rental period is 30 days or longer. That brings the rental under New York's apartment rental laws, and gives the person who rents the apartment certain rights that they would not have had with a shorter rental period. Perfectly legal.

The law does preclude you from renting an apartment for fewer than 30 days in which you will not be also residing during the rental period.

TL;DR : the law is intended to prevent landlords from turning their apartment stock into hotel rooms.

Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

You wouldn't dream of imposing such restrictions on property owners, did I get that right?

No, you got it wrong. I have no problems with imposing restrictions on property owners, I have a problem with such restrictions being imposed through a political process that necessarily ends up being corrupt.

It is perfectly fine for my HOA to decide, according to our own rules, to prohibit AirBnB rentals.

It is not fine for the hotel lobby to corrupt the political process in order to prohibit other private property owners from competing with them, while they themselves don't bear the cost of the restrictions they impose.

So I guess you're not going to complain about me opening that rendering plant next to your home, right?

As for the "rendering plant", you couldn't build that next to my house since the private property association that I'm a member of doesn't allow it; in effect, I paid for being protected from such land use. If, on the other hand, I had converted a building in an industrial area to residential use, then I wouldn't object to my neighbor building a rendering plant; there would be no basis for such an objection.

What you are saying is that you want to buy unrestricted land at a low price, and then later impose restrictions on other property owners without paying for them. That's what a lot of property owners are trying to do, and it's wrong.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[naubol]

You had "see, liberals, you don't want people telling you where to live." You had it right there.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ranton]

Most condo towers have rules and boards that work much better in regulating live-in owners than owners with transient tenants.

Have these condo towers not updated their regulations in the last decade?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[naubol]

Corrupt, terrible, awesome, tremendous, disaster. I feel like powerful words have lost all their power through capricious use.

Hotel owners are part of the polity and deserve to have a voice in government. Hotel owners were not the only ones asking for this. Corruption is a serious charge which you throw out with no evidence. Maybe your point is that they have undue influence?

It wasn't the land owners that decided the original zoning in your stated example. There's a reason that these things are decided at a more encompassing level than just HOAs.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Swave An deBwoner]

It sounds like your parents would be in compliance with the NY laws then, because they are living in the place that they have listed on airbnb. They "see their customers for an hour or two in the evening, and then briefly in the morning for breakfast". Perfectly legal in NY also under the present law.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fahrbot-bot]

So I guess you're not going to complain about me opening that rendering plant next to your home, right? You wouldn't dream of imposing such restrictions on property owners, did I get that right?

Rendering plant? Nope. I like CGI. :-)

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Actually, I do RTFA]

. If you don't subsidize housing

There's no way not to subsidize housing. Or at least, there's no way to make housing a free market. Between zoning, building codes, property taxes, tax-deductablity of mortgage interest. and numerous other things, the housing market is locked into being government regulated or at least influenced.

Also, housing does not consist of primarily interchangeable goods, which is pretty much required for most free market goods to get their huge benefits.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

In sweden Airbnb is used for prostitution now.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Actually, I do RTFA]

My observations are that the more the government gets involved in making things "affordable" the less affordable those things are.

Ummm... except for vaccines, flood insurance, home loans (if black/latino), fire protection, car insurance, phone service, food, GPS, postal services, etc.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Actually, I do RTFA]

you ought to be free to make such decisions for your private associations. You ought not to be free to impose such restrictions on other property owners.

Government, esp. city government, is in essence a longterm homeowner's association. I defy you to draw a line between a city government and an HOA, with the exception that the city also maintains a police force (which is the same police force that would enforce the HOA's rulings anyway.)

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not fine for the hotel lobby to corrupt the political process in order to prohibit other private property owners from competing with them,

Is it fine for the hotel lobby to advocate for the political process to apply the same obligations and restrictions to AirBNB as they are expected to follow? The reason AirBNB does it cheaper and can compete with, say, Hilton, is because AirBNB claims it is exempt from many of the taxes, restrictions, and other regulations that hotels fall under, apparently, because "the internet."

Same thing with Uber.

If you want to talk corrupt - how about the companies that are ignoring or circumventing (you might even say, willfully corrupting!) regulations that everybody else providing the same services is subject to? What makes AirBNB special - why is it moral for a homeowner to "make extra money", but immoral for Hilton to try and "make extra money"? Why should Hilton be subject to these rules and regulations, but AirBNB shouldn't be? All you've done is assert "corruption!" without any evidence, while ignoring the fact that you're basically saying "my team should win, because... intarwebz!"

What you are saying is that you want to buy unrestricted land at a low price, and then later impose restrictions on other property owners without paying for them. That's what a lot of property owners are trying to do, and it's wrong.

At some point, many NYC hotels weren't subject to all of the taxes and regulations they are subject to today. Someone later came along and imposed restrictions on those property owners without paying for them.

Why should we sympathetic to AirBNB, but not Marriott, exactly? If you want to enter the "room for rent" game, why shouldn't you be subject to the same set of rules and regulations that every other existing "room for rent" business is subject to?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[barc0001]

> You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb. What can you do?

Uh, you complain to the strata and the unit owner gets fined. You keep complaining and the owner keeps getting fined. At some point the number of fines will outweigh their profit and they stop AirBNBing the place. Works here in my tower.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[shaitand]

There you go, problem solved, no draconian government regulation and fines required.

As for the low income housing thing, this is already covered. If you make a dollar on low income benefits they take a dollar worth of benefits away so when they discover the income they will take the benefits away. The system is set up to prevent you from being able to make any substantial amount of money before it gets associated with you.

When I was 17 my mother went on SS disability, there was a single month check paid for me as well because I was a minor but by the time the check was cut I was an adult so the check was sent to me rather than her. It was a measly $600. When I was 33 they caught the error and came looking for it. Probably someone came up with a new system for catching errors and ran against old data. You never know when the scheme which slips through the cracks today will be retroactively audited and caught tomorrow.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[barc0001]

If it's a shitty low rise wood frame condo, noise is a problem, but then again that's the case in some woodframe condos I've seen that have notices in the elevator asking people not to close their cabinet doors too hard. That's not an AirBNB or regular occupant problem, that's a "developer was cutting corners on soundproofing/not bothering with soundproofing to maximize profit" problem. I live in a concrete tower and I hear *nothing*. It's lovely.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[anegg]

Zoning regulations are absolutely necessary. Crafting the right zoning regulations may be tricky, but with no zoning regulations many more people will end up becoming victims of other people's self-interest/profit motive than without zoning regulations.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Anonymous Coward]

"that's why California totally isn't the 6th largest economy in the world"

You mean the government has been running at a deficit for the past decade & whos cost of living is 20-30% higher than most of the US? If you adjust California's GDP by population and cost of living their economy is pretty underwhelming. For example Californias (~$62k GDP PC *0.77 CoL adjustment = $47.7k) cost of living/per capita adjusted GDP compared to Michigans ($46.5 GDP PC * 1.1 CoL adjustment = $51.15k) is pretty similar. I'm afraid all of the hoopla about how "great" California is amounts pretty much exclusively to good PR.

https://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

I am sorry, but I am unaware of any successful efforts by the government to make ANY of those more affordable.
Certainly the government is responsible for the existence of vaccines and flood insurance. I will not argue about the government involvement in vaccines because I have never looked at the role government plays there. Flood insurance is an example of an idea that seems good that may not be so good after all. Basically, at this point government guaranteed flood insurance is a subsidy by the middle class for well-to-do vacation homes.
As to fire protection, in my life I have only lived one year in an area where the fire protection was provided by the government. The rest of the time I lived in areas covered by volunteer fire companies who conducted fundraisers to cover their expenses (from time to time one or more of them received grants from the government for equipment, but most of them would have managed without that).

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[mysidia]

always available for rent because the owners were making more money on it then renting them out as housing.

Makes sense. In other words..... listing that unit on AirBnB provides more value to both the owner and to the public than offering
that unit for long-term rent, since there is more consumer demand for what AirBnb provides than for long-term housing,
otherwise the two should cost about the same per day to rent.

Meaning what AirBNB does makes things fairer for people.

With a long-term rental I get stuck in a lease for perhaps an entire year, and then have to pay a penalty if I want to move early.....
With a short-term AirBNB-style rental, I would be free to move my apartment to a different part of town every month.
How come I should get gouged for that? The price for a short-term VS a long-term ought to be relatively equal, and
there's clearly a market distortion / manipulation being done designed to bolster profits for the long-term tenants at expense of the public.

Also, BOTH renting for long term AND renting out short-term through AirBnB ARE ways of getting housing. One is just a longer term agreement.
The difference in price should be mostly the average administrative costs for each rental period. Obviously renting through AirBnB or other
short-term arrangements have a higher average per-day administrative cost.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[squiggleslash]

Holy God, did someone actually come up with something useful HOAs can do?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[PRMan]

Then the correct solution is to outlaw the use of affordable housing in AirBnb only.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[squiggleslash]

And you ought to be free to make such decisions for your private associations. You ought not to be free to impose such restrictions on other property owners.

Unless the HOA has the rule at the time every single person in the neighborhood has moved in, then no, it shouldn't be able to make that decision.

HOAs are not democratic governments. They are only allowed to enforce the rules in their charters, and given the power they have, and the ease with which that power ends up being controlled by a tiny group of people, it's absolutely right they're limited in that way.

Bans on AirBNB need to be addressed through the democratic process.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[PRMan]

The Southern 2/3 would love the Northern 1/3 to break off.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[mysidia]

Municipalities impose all kinds of zoning ordinances on property owners.

Zoning ordinances are only able to restrict what can be built on the land.
Those aren't able to control what private business property owners do inside their homes.

Land rented out on AirBnB is still being used for residential functions, just like normal house rentals --- one person, or less than 10 people are living there
at a time, albeit, the arrangement may be a temporary one; it's immaterial in regards to land use whether a friend is staying over or whether there's a
formal business transaction.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Municipalities impose all kinds of zoning ordinances on property owners. Neighborhoods zoned for residential use are cordoned off from business interests

So freelancers working from home can't live there, for example?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[MooseTick]

" it's 24x7 party next door"

Have you ever used AirBNB? I've used it a few times and didn't have a party. Hotel rooms aren't usually used for parties either. In general, I just need a place to leave my stuff and sleep when traveling for work or fun. When I've used AirBNB, I suspect the neighbors don't even have a clue that I'm there, and I believe thats true for 99% of their users.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[The-Ixian]

Simple solution: Make the law ban shared dwelling buildings.... see how easy that is? You should be able to do whatever you want with your own home....

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[the_B0fh]

Those aren't rented out under AirBNB. You're bitching at the wrong people.

Just saying.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[sed quid in infernos]

So both responses to this post decided to respond to something I didn't say, rather than what I did say. I wasn't making an argument for no zoning regulation (and I didn't address fire or safety codes at all). I said that zoning regulations, *as implemented* make it much harder to afford housing in many places. Which suggests we should come up with better zoning regulations. For example, San Francisco could stop restricting denser housing development--something that makes perfect sense once you recognize that the problem is a shortage of housing. There are numerous studies about this, from researchers across the political spectrum. I suppose I'm lucky neither of you made the Somalia argument that is the usual straw-man response to anyone who questions a particular set of regulations.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[thegarbz]

I wasn't questioning the compliance of the laws, I was questioning what people rent an airbnb to turn it into a party shack for the night repeatedly enough that people justify this law by saying it maintains the peace.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Flood insurance is an example of an idea that seems good that may not be so good after all

You didn't ask for "things that are good" you asked for "things that are made more affordable by the government". I mean, I should throw in government services, I suppose (e..g education, roads).

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[jonwil]

The hotel lobby who got this law passed didn't care about what AirBnB did to housing costs, they only cared that AirBnB stopped them from being so greedy and making big $$$ from visitors to NYC.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Pfhorrest]

free market capitalism

There's no such thing.

If a market is capitalistic -- shaped by the prior distribution of capital, rather than solely the present value contributed by its participants -- then it's not free.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

Hotels give good employment to a lot of people. It can be a very hard job but a very interesting job. We need as many interesting jobs as we can get.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[LordLucless]

Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

Uh, the whole point of this article was that this practice was lowering prices in the short-term rental market. Providing a demanded service cheaply is rare considered "extortion". And just because a law was pre-existing doesn't mean it's a good law - just like the various taxi restrictions that Uber ran into, it was a service using governmental power to protect themselves from competition. If you want to talk actual extortion, start there.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

The only thing they can do is call the cops... so say the cops are always successful at quieting the party the first time, it will just be someone different the next weekend. So now people are having every single weekend wrecked. Clearly, it is a situation that is much more difficult to manage.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

What recourse does the condo association really have? Then it just costs the association aka the TENANTS more money and resources fighting every single instance.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

A city can't just grow with reckless abandon and no control or planning, that would never form a workable society. Therefore regulations are a necessity.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

Ah yes let's encourage a race to the bottom, nothing could go wrong with that philosophy!

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

You don't see as much of that as you could because Americans don't want their government to interfere. If America were to start buying drugs on behalf of all Americans as Canada does, then prices would fall. But, fair competition and all that.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[lucm]

that may work if you're the owner. As a legitimate, long-term tenant, you have no power.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[lucm]

You live in a nice quiet condo tower, and then suddenly it's 24x7 party next door because the unit is being rented on Airbnb.

All your airbnb's turn into a 24/7 party? What they hell are you guys doing? Most of the time I see AirBnb's empty during the day and having several passed out tourists snoring in beds at night. I challenge your assertion that the place suddenly turns into a party room.

So you're seeing tourists passed out in their beds? You're either a creep or a liar, not sure which one is worst.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[lucm]

sure - but then you can very easily take the beef up with THEM - and then the association - and finally the police.

which is what happens with Airbnb rentals, and so the association just bans them.

And then your association get sued - like it happened with Ellen Pao's husband who sued them for not allowing him to buy a fourth unit in the building and accused them of racism.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[lucm]

Your condo contract doesn't include a rule that you, as the owner, are held responsible for all problems your potential renters cause? Odd. Mine does.

This problem has a very easy solution.

In many markets, every single unit in the building is owned by small landlords and/or corporations and rented out to "normal" tenants. Those don't get a seat at the HOA table. When some of the tenants "sublease" their condo a few nights at a time to Airbnb guests and things get noisy, there's many parties involved and problems last forever. This is not as straightforward as what you describe.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

I'm sorry, but few if any of the things on your list are things made more affordable by the government. For example, flood insurance only exists because the government created it. Ditto for GPS. I am not sure how you think the government made phone service more affordable (there are two possibilities, places where there would not be phone service if not for the government...or at least not until long after it was made available there, or the break up of AT&T's monopoly, which only existed because the government created it in the first place). As for food, my food is MORE expensive because the government decided it was a good idea to use food for fuel. I am hard pressed as to how you think that postal service has been made more affordable by the government.
So, care to try again?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, most condo associations have the ability to fine those who violate their rules pretty heavily. Some even have the ability to force the person to sell.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course, there would be fewer new drugs at that point, but hey, we have drugs to cure or at least treat everything YOU expect to ever have, why would we need any new ones?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

It would tap into profits for sure, but say drug companies make 30% less across the board. You're saying this would somehow prevent them from wanting more profit? Their quest for more will not stop, even if it is not as much more.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

Government, esp. city government, is in essence a longterm homeowner's association. I defy you to draw a line between a city government and an HOA,

Usually, in an HOA, only owners can vote; they vote proportionally to their shares; they pay dues proportionally to their shares; expenses must be accounted for; any debt is incurred proportionally to owners; it can't take away property from people; it can't deprive people of their liberty; its management is subject to civil and criminal liability. Need I go on?

Government often started out as a private association, but it deteriorated into the corrupt system we have today. HOAs are slowly following the same path driven by government interference and laws (e.g., in some states, renters have a right to vote in HOA meetings), but that is still rare, and when that happens, the "HOA" ceases to be an HOA or a voluntary, private association in the usual sense.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

Hotel owners are part of the polity and deserve to have a voice in government.

They are also a special interest group, and when they exercise disproportionate interest and enrich themselves at the expense of society, then that is political corruption.

Corruption is a serious charge which you throw out with no evidence. Maybe your point is that they have undue influence?

I said it "corrupts the political process", not that "hotel owners are corrupt". That is, I made a political point, not a legal point, and furthermore, the people who actually are corrupt are the politicians granting these favors, not the hotel owners asking for them.

There's a reason that these things are decided at a more encompassing level than just HOAs.

Yes: we call those reasons "power", "greed", and "corruption".

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ooloorie]

HOAs are not democratic governments.

Correct. And that's a good thing. They are voluntary private associations in which power, ownership, cost, and risk are all closely linked. That is, in an HOA, it is very hard to enrich yourself at the expense of others.

Bans on AirBNB need to be addressed through the democratic process.

Yes, they do need to be addressed that way, because that is the only way you can enact unjust laws in the the US.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[fluffernutter]

Name any successful city that has grown better without regulation and we shall discuss.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Swave An deBwoner]

Uh, the whole point of this article was that this practice was lowering prices in the short-term rental market. Providing a demanded service cheaply is rare considered "extortion". And just because a law was pre-existing doesn't mean it's a good law - just like the various taxi restrictions that Uber ran into, it was a service using governmental power to protect themselves from competition. If you want to talk actual extortion, start there.

The point of my post -- you seem to have missed it -- is that the result has been significant raising of prices in the apartment market. For example, a studio that may garner $2500 rented out on a one or two year apartment lease (yeah, an expensive shoe box) can easily bring in two or three times that when the landlord turns it into a short-stay (hotel) room rental. Now maybe that short-term price is lower than what it would cost a tourist to rent a regular hotel room of similar size with cooking facilities, but that landlord has just removed one more legal studio apartment from the already untenable housing market and turned it into an illegal hotel room.

And please, stop with the "providing a demanded service cheaply" crap. Tenants in a building that is being converted -- one apartment at a time, to airbnb rentals -- are being done out of the "demanded service" that the landlord previously entered into with them -- namely, providing an apartment in which to live around others who have also made that building their "home". They didn't rent their apartments expecting to have 365 different next door neighbors per year.

So while stopping airbnb from making it easy for landlords to do this crap may cause some tourists to pay a bit more for a hotel room, the law -- and it's a good law -- helps to keep the already disastrous housing market from becoming significantly worse.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[thegarbz]

Yes I creep on people with my ears.
Oh and totally tourists party hard in shitty little accommodations rather than ... you know clubs, bars, street festivals, town squares, and all the other shit they actually come to see.

By the way a liar is a person who tells lies, not someone who doesn't share your opinion. You don't even need a dictionary for this, you can just google it these days.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

You fail to understand the concept of risk vs reward and how it impacts investment. I have not looked at the numbers in awhile so I will use some hypothetical numbers to explain it to you.

If a company has to decide where to invest $10 million between one investment which has only a 1 in 10 chance of success, but the return is $100 million and another investment where the chance of success is 1 in 20 but the return is $1 billion they will likely choose the latter. If you reduce the return on the latter to $150 million, they will choose the former.

The numbers I have seen in the past suggest that Canadian drug prices pay for the cost of production of drugs with a reasonable profit, but will not support the cost of developing drugs. The cost of developing drugs is mostly paid for in the U.S. market...meaning that U.S. drug customers are subsidizing Canadian drug customers.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[ericlondaits]

Unless you fine U$S 7500 to repeat offenders.. which seems easier to track than who is renting what in what manner and making neighbors police each other.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[david_thornley]

The legal system is a blunt instrument. It's hard to draw fine distinctions.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[sjames]

It's funny you say that without even examining the downside. Eliminate all that low income housing so it can be turned into AirBnB space and suddenly the people who actually keep the city running will have to leave. Don't tell me they'll commute in, I've seen the traffic in the morning there and I've seen the parking situation. Once you can't hire a janitor in NY for less that 120K, business will leave.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[david_thornley]

For example, flood insurance only exists because the government created it.

This suggests that (a) nobody wants flood insurance, which is empirically false, or (b) there's a profit opportunity here that for some stupid reason nobody is interested in, or (c) it would be unaffordable if a private company did it, and the government makes it affordable. GPS is similar: it's very useful, and is only affordable because it's a government program.

The post office used to be absolutely vital, and made communications affordable. It was always possible to hire someone to go from New York to Philadelphia to deliver a letter, but the post office made it a lot cheaper.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[david_thornley]

So, why should we subsidize the rest of the world? Right now, drug companies can negotiate more leniently with other countries because they know they can sell for ridiculous prices in the US. If the US started using negotiating power in buying drugs, either the drug companies would have to raise costs in other places or they'd need some alternate way of financing new drugs, which would be a lot more fair than what they're doing now.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[sjames]

You left out GPS. It didn't exist at all until the DOD put those satellites up there. UPS and FedEx depend on the postal service for the last mile in many places.They wouldn't do that if they could deliver the package cheaper by themselves.

For vaccines, many manufacturers were leaving the business due to the extremely high liability in that one in millions case where it provokes a reaction leading to severe disability. Now the Feds insure that liability.

You are now aware of 3 of those being cheaper (or existing at all) due to government.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[david_thornley]

Hotel owners had a legitimate interest in that, since they were held to higher legal standards than AirBnB, and couldn't operate as cheaply. They provide a service and deserve the same chance to make a profit as any other business owners. They probably didn't care about affordable housing, but their actions do make housing more affordable.

Doubtless some of the laws hotel operators must abide by are there to create artificial barriers to entry, but some have useful purposes, and in any case it's unfair for AirBnB to move in and offer hotel service without abiding by the appropriate laws.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

The government does not make flood insurance affordable. It just covers the cost by taking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy. The government did not make GPS affordable. However, the government had a use for GPS that made it worth the sunk costs necessary to develop it in the first place. Once those costs were paid, GPS became affordable. The government created the post office because it needed a way to deliver messages to the citizens. However, even the government could not afford this without opening it up to use by everyone.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

Or they would just stop working on developing new drugs that do not have a low enough development cost.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[Attila Dimedici]

Let me see: Vaccines...there was a problem created by the government which the government "fixed".
FedEx using the USPS for last mile...of course, the USPS uses FedEx for the long haul, so that is about an even swap, at best (the other possibility is that FedEx is propping up the USPS for their own reasons).
GPD, making something is not making it more affordable. The U.S. government had a use for GPS which, to its decision makers, made it worth the sunk costs of developing it and deploying the satellites. I doubt that anyone would justify even the ongoing expense of GPS if it were not for its military usage. GPS is not particularly affordable. It's just that the costs are hidden.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[sjames]

So what problem with vaccines did the government supposedly create?

Are you saying that if somehow the decision was entirely yours, you would order GPS shut down right now? Do you have any idea how many things would get more expensive or just stop working?

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[david_thornley]

You seem to be saying that US residents must pay godawful prices for drugs to keep drug companies developing new drugs. I agree that this is how much new drug research is currently funded, but I really think we can find a better solution.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[david_thornley]

No, you're ignoring the plain meaning of the words.

Some people want flood insurance. Private insurance companies won't sell it at affordable prices. I agree that government subsidies are a scam here, but the government makes flood insurance affordable.

The advantages of GPS were obvious, but it was too expensive for private companies to do, hence unaffordable. It's affordable now.

The post office made sending messages affordable. The government took advantage of that.

Re:except it wasn't people renting out their rooms

[the Gray Mouser]

Private courier services still exist and have existed since at least the Roman Empire. Try delivering a letter using some other company (or a private individual) and compare the price to buying a stamp. As for the other examples that didn't exist until created by government, in most cases they didn't exist precisely because the cost was too prohibitive.

taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is there because the city is missing out on the tourist taxes hotels collect. Higher prices means more tax for the city, a win for everyone except the tourist. If Airbnb finds a way to pay the taxes these laws won't spread.

Re:taxes

[rudy_wayne]

The law is there because the city is missing out on the tourist taxes hotels collect. Higher prices means more tax for the city, a win for everyone except the tourist. If Airbnb finds a way to pay the taxes these laws won't spread.

There's nothing to prevent AirBnB from paying those taxes now. But the whole purpose of AirBnB's existence is to be in the house/apartment rental business but but pretend that they aren't so they can *AVOID* all the rules and fees that everyone else has to pay. Same with Uber and all the others. They just want to be a middleman who does nothing but skim a few dollars from every transaction, with no accountability to anyone.

Re:taxes

[JaredOfEuropa]

I doubt that's the real issue. The city of Amsterdam complained about tourists using AirBnB not paying their taxes, and simply made a deal with AirBnB. AirBnB now collects the taxes from tourists and pays the city.

The real problem cities have with AirBnB is that a lot of people, either landlords or tenants in subsidized or rent controlled housing, are effectively turning their homes into hotels, but without all the rules and regulations regarding fire safety, hygiene, registration and so on which real hotels do have to deal with.

Re:taxes

[Archangel Michael]

they can *AVOID* all the rules and fees that everyone else has to pay.

And yet, liberals fail to see the actual problem. So, instead of recognizing the problem (too many fees and rules), they create more fees and rules designed to prevent people from avoiding all the previous fees and rules. And when someone figures a way around that, they add more fees and rules.

The real problem is, that nobody is stopping long enough to ask do we need more fees and rules to protect the people who have set the barriers to entry protecting their industries?

The biggest gripe I've seen is that the "Tourists" aren't "paying their fair share", as if the city has a right to highway robbery under the guise of being the Lord of the land, and claiming it is to protect the serfs that serve the Lord.

Re:taxes

[meta-monkey]

They just want to be a middleman who does nothing but skim a few dollars from every transaction, with no accountability to anyone.

They should start a bank instead.

Re:taxes

[slack_justyb]

And yet, liberals fail to see the actual problem.

Hey, hey, hey there... It's not just limited to liberals. I live in the "deep south" surrounded by some of the biggest conservatives out there, and there's tons of folks around these parts that act like airbnb is some kind of liberator to their "freedom". You just stop and say, "um, you could have totally rented out your place before airbnb was invented WTF?!"

Re:taxes

[dyslexicbunny]

I don't disagree with most of the sentiment but if people don't like all the fees and rules, they are free to go anywhere else. I'm unaware of anyone being forced to visit anywhere (well beyond kids stuck on family vacation).

Out of curiosity, does the approach Florida takes with a high sales tax but lower other taxes work better/worse for you?

Re:taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of AirBnB is to let middle class people use their main bit of capital, i.e. their home, to raise income.
As such is the best kind of capitalism

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

When everybody must be a taxi driver or run Mom's Boarding House to make ends meet, sure, the economy sucks balls. On the other hand, if you have a better idea, we're all ears.

Politicians siding with big business? Naw.

[barcenas.francisco]

Since so we allow politicians siding with big business to remain in office? Get them the F out! Why don't they put things that concern people up for a vote of the people?

Re:Politicians siding with big business? Naw.

[edbob]

The people might not vote "properly".

Re:Politicians siding with big business? Naw.

[Luthair]

AirBNB is also big business. I think its more that people are complaining some of them probably building owners but also renters who feel its affecting availability.

Re:Politicians siding with big business? Naw.

[Archangel Michael]

The two main choices for President are kind of proof that the people can't vote properly, IMHO

Re:Politicians siding with big business? Naw.

[meta-monkey]

If you side with the people instead of the businesses the media companies the businesses own call you a racist sexist islamophobe homophobe xenophobe and pay a bunch of whores to say you traumatized them with a kiss.

Do the what the businesses want and fuck you can do whatever you want. Threaten your husband's rape victims and they'll call you a champion for women, and steal money from Haitian reconstruction and they'll call you an advocate for the poor.

So?

[PvtVoid]

Lower rents for residents, at the cost of higher hotel prices for visitors. Sounds like a very reasonable tradeoff.

Re:So?

[CrimsonAvenger]

And there is evidence that rents are lower as a result of this regulation/law?

Re:So?

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, the rents tend to be higher and availability is lower, since Landlords can now rent AirBNB and earn more money than they can doing whole month leases.

The problem isn't for the Landlords it is for the big Hotels that are losing lots of customers due to increased supply. These new rules are designed to realign the supply for the benefit of the entrenched industries (hotels)

Re:So?

[Pfhorrest]

There is evidence that rents went up because of AirBnB-style practices. This law discourages AirBnB-style practices. Ergo this law counteracts those rising rents, i.e. lowering them again. QED.

he's just supplying what we're all demanding

[Pseudonymous Powers]

A hotel executive said a recently-passed New York law cracking down on Airbnb hosts will enable the company to raise prices for New York City hotel rooms...

"Dammit, Mark! We all agreed! We don't teach the easants-pay about asic-bay economics-way!"

Re: Good

[Type44Q]

Well fucking said.

Capitalism?

[MeNeXT]

It seems that every time we have a good example of capitalism the entrenched players come in and justify why it doesn't work. There is no way that capitalism will ever exist in it's true form because the established payers have no incentive to allow it. That's one reason but this article mentions another, subsidized housing (socialist solution that encourages lower wages).

There is no right or wrong here if the playing field would just remain constant but as soon as there is a way that the little guy can make a profit the rules change. I may be over simplifying the problem but the way I see it if rules were not written to favor one citizen over another then maybe we would see the wealth evenly distributed.

Re:Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is effectively the true form of capitalism. You sound exactly like teenage "communists" who argue that true communism was never tried. Guess what, if it was tried numerous times and turned into bloodshed every time, then that's exactly what the true form of communism is. Same with capitalism. There is no abstract ideal, it only exists as its actual realization which turns out to be a man-made hell of 0.1% of the richest enslaving everyone else.

Re:Capitalism?

[RandomSurfer314]

There is no way that capitalism will ever exist in it's true form

I very much hope so.

Re:Capitalism?

[meta-monkey]

And comrade, as soon as world communism is established the Politburo will disband but until then it is only reasonable for ministers to have second dacha to recuperate from all hard work they do on behalf of the people.

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

"But we need to protect the ___________ industry ... because of jobs"

Government should stop protecting industries from competition
Government should stop sponsoring industries that can't support themselves

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, under True Capitalism, the rich cannot enslave anyone, especially in a republic of laws that prohibit it. So instead of Capitalism and Republic, we are going down the tubes to Socialism and Democracy based on convenience and emotion.

They(Liberal socialists) never realize that markets want to be free, and the only way to keep them from being free is totalitarianism (rules, regulations, taxes and government guns)

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

I bet you can't even articulate why you think Capitalism is bad, and what the "better" option would be, without using anecdotal evidence and emotionalism.

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

Rule changing is a function of a non-free economy. The only way there are rules, is because people want them. Enough rules, and you no longer are free.

Re:Capitalism?

[ooloorie]

It seems that every time we have a good example of capitalism the entrenched players come in and justify why it doesn't work. There is no way that capitalism will ever exist in it's true form because the established payers have no incentive to allow it.

There are plenty of pretty economically liberal areas within the US and around the world. The fact that NYC is not one of them doesn't change that.

In fact, the biggest problem the US faces is that many other countries have caught on to the benefits of free markets and liberalized their economies. That is why so many companies are leaving the US. In the US, on the other hand, increasing centralization of power in Washington has meant that states are increasingly prevented from competing on liberal economic policies.

Re:Capitalism?

[ooloorie]

Same with capitalism. There is no abstract ideal, it only exists as its actual realization which turns out to be a man-made hell of 0.1% of the richest enslaving everyone else.

No, sorry, that's false. Free markets and low taxes have existed in many places throughout history, and they have generally resulted in peace and prosperity.

Today, there are many nations economically more free than the US, and economic freedom strongly correlates with prosperity and other positive social indicators.

While some minimal government regulation may be necessary (far less than what we have right now in the US), beyond that, more government interference in the economy makes people increasingly worse off.

Re: Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because so many car factories are moving to Switzerland...

You seem to be mixing up ideas here. The work is going to places with low regulation, specifically worker protection and environmental regulation.

The corporate tax dodging HQ is what will relocate to the nice classical liberal nations heritage mentions.

Either way, it won't benefit the people.

Re:Capitalism?

[roman_mir]

'wealth evenly distributed' - well that's a nonsensical idea. Wealth cannot and should not be 'evenly distributed', somebody will always be more efficient than many other people, thus wealth will never be 'evenly distributed', nor should it be.

Re:Capitalism?

[suutar]

I'm not seeing what in True Capitalism prevents the enslaving. Are we just falling back to the laws of the republic for that? In which case how are such laws not in fact regulations affecting the market for labor (at least)?

Re:Capitalism?

[atrimtab]

Pure Capitalism over time only exacerbates inequality for all but a very few who accumulate the vast majority of capital. And given that "corporations are immortal people" with less liability than real people, capital accumulated by all means fair or foul will simply flow to such entities that never are forced to disperse that capital at death unlike real "people." In addition, multi-national immortal corporations will play arbitrage games with income, finance, currency, futures, derivatives, employment, externalities, and property to maximize their returns across the world by gaming various separately governed regions against each other while propagandizing that they are "making the world better" without ever revealing the real trade-offs and consequences of their deliberate actions to the populations of the regions they operate across or the "shareholders of planet earth"

.

It's more complex than that and a post is inadequate to fully explain all the issues. But capitalism without regulation and checks on accumulation is and will create a guaranteed dystopia of corporate kings, their goons and human serfs given the changes in law that have accelerated since the Reagan Administration.

.

This is what happens when the only responsibility of a corporation is to provide the best return to shareholders and executives.

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

The purpose of government is to ensure the liberties of its citizenry, not play mommy and daddy protecting people from themselves.

Constitution says so, but they are (patents and copyright) rights as in the same as "freedom of speech" is a right, but are the only rights that are limited (time in this case) Interestingly, because it is a right (granted, not natural) it also requires securing. Which is, IMHO, the duty and purpose of government.

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

There is no right of "contract" anywhere in the Constitution. Which is one of the reasons why I am opposed to government (at any level) defining marriage in any way shape or form (marriage being a contract). Keep in mind, I am a Libertarian, so my views are based on liberty. My views on Contracts (and incorporation) are that these are grants of the state (governments at any level) , and therefore are created and exist with the blessing of the state, which means the state can also dissolve them. Imagine a Corporation accused, tried and convicted of some crime, and the state having the power to dissolve it, sell off the assets and give the victims their due, how that would change the "moral" nature of the corporation itself. I call it the "corporate death sentence". Yes, corporations are legal entities, but only because the state allows it to be that way.

I am not anarchist. I have a very well defined purpose of government ...

... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Such a government would lead to a very prosperous nation and people. Anything less is a road to tyranny.

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm not seeing what in True Capitalism prevents the enslaving.

A just government dedicated to the rights of the people (individually). As of right now, the US Constitution has indentured every working person (enslaved) in a violation of the 14th Amendment. Socialism by definition requires the taking of a mans effort, and giving it to another, under threat. The 16th Amendment is, a horrible case of government enslaving its people. A man ought to have complete and total control over the wages he makes, and not having any such protection, we are all slaves to government.

A government that can take whatever it wants from you (via taxes) can take everything you have. There is no limit.

Re:Capitalism?

[suutar]

Okay, so it's not the capitalism, it's the republic of laws that prevents enslavement. How are laws that prevent enslavement not in fact regulations that affect the market for labor?

Re:Capitalism?

[Archangel Michael]

The market doesn't require slaves to operate. It requires free will of the operators to operate. Free will, and free operation in the marketplace are inseparable. I would suggest to you, that enslavement requires at minimum tacit acceptance by the state in order to function. Meaning that in order to have slavery, the state must at minimum accept it, and at worst, use the power to enforce it. Slavery negates the free will and self determination of those enslaved.

The fact that you cannot see how Free Will and Self Determination do not require any rules or regulations suprises me. Slavery actually requires one to enact rules to keep slaves enslaved. Which is why every rule, regulation and law should be evaluated on the premise that men ought to be free (and to which all that entails)

Re:Capitalism?

[david_thornley]

The market is perfectly compatible with slavery. For example, I have assets. I have a car that takes me to work and back, for example, and allows me to do other things. The car doesn't need free will. Similarly, if I have a slave, I can do more things. I've got the free will for market purposes, and the slave will obey me. (Or else.)

The fact that slavery is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means that there have to be measures to prevent the slave from complaining to the police, since a police officer is supposed to make sure the slave gets free as opposed to returning him or her.

Also, for a market to work, there have to be limits on free will and self-determination. It doesn't work if someone, of his or her own free will, uses self-determination to kill you and take your stuff.

Re:Capitalism?

[david_thornley]

Sure. Trying to equalize outcomes is stupid. Trying to equalize opportunity isn't. Given equal opportunity, someone will do better than the others, for whatever reason. We do want to compensate for lack of wealth in providing opportunity, if only because we're better off when people can realize their potential.

Re:I would openly celebrate, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the state to fight your competition is called crony capitalism and gets more opposition from capitalists than commies.

But AirBnB provides liquidity to the market...

[Anonymous Coward]

By engaging the high frequency rental model, AirBnB helps provide the liquidity that the market needs to adapt quickly to a changing environment. Limiting high frequency rentals increases the risk of price fluctuations.

Business as usual

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

At the heart of the fight is a debate over the societal value of the Airbnb platform and its role in the economy of cities throughout the world. The question is whether Airbnb has been a net benefit, by enabling middle class city-dwellers to make extra money by renting out their homes

These things don't enter in as legitimate questions in a free society. Free people reserve their right to enter a new business and compete. Opportunities are not things to be doled out to powerful and connected people in backroom deals.

It is literally laughable that these wealthy people carving up the power to rent to you, used "affordable housing" as a meme to get this anticompetitive law passed.

Observe as attack lap dogs regurgitate distraction memes about safety or regulation. No shortage of memes supporting big, money-donating businesses as the end product.

Re:Business as usual

[Archangel Michael]

Observe as attack lap dogs regurgitate distraction memes about safety or regulation.

Most of those meme fail once you actually test them. The "Safety" regulations aren't just the obvious (Fire alarms), but go all the way down to "bedbugs". The problem is, that no amount of regulation actually solves any problem and the regulations aren't actually enforced when there is a failure. Yes, Hilton has fire detectors in every room because of regulation, but my view is that they would have them (eventually) anyways. It is kind of like "free wifi" is, it is a "selling point". Eventually everyone has "Free Internet" anyways, because those that do not have it will eventually lose business.

Hilton will take extra steps to get rid of "bedbugs" in because they rely upon their reputation. An AirBNB member probably cannot provide that level of service. Eventually, the marketplace will sort it out, it always does.

Neighborhoods, not hotels or housing stock

[ZipK]

Consistently lost in the discussion of protecting hotel trade or preserving housing stock is the negative affect Airbnb has on neighborhoods. People buy houses in residential neighborhoods to enjoy the benefits of... residential neighborhoods. Introducing an unknown, transient stream of tourists and other visitors into stable neighborhoods is generally a net-negative for the neighbors. Airbnb allows individuals to unilaterally monetize the peace and safety of their neighbors. That is the problem with Airbnb.

Re:Neighborhoods, not hotels or housing stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's not a real effect. Those owners could already rent out their house every weekend. Airbnb enabled nothing new. They just did it at a scale that governments noticed the missing taxes and hotel owners complained. And even then, the traffic patterns aren't new either. Only so many people can live at a home. It's just instead of home owners coming home after a day of work, it's a tourist or business man coming home after a busy day. The traffic load is exactly the same. A few houses could rent to a group of people, but then we can claim they're just like a larger family living there.

The problem is stuck up neighbors, not Airbnb. Go live your life instead of bitching about other people.

Thanks, jackass

[HideyoshiJP]

I totally support banning Airbnb for the usual arguments (flophouses, property values, rental markets, etc). Still, this CEO isn't going to help anything by giving Airbnb supporters ammunition. Thanks, jackass.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[sittingnut]

laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.

laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.

solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer simpler rules are followed.

I'm confused...

[kenh]

It is newsworthy/noteworthy that reduced competition leads to higher prices?

From what I understand, cities like NYC have very carefully-crafted laws regarding hotels designed to protect the rights and safety of both the hotelier and the guest. AirBnB wants to be exempt from all those regulations and hospitality taxes because, well, it allows them to offer a lower-cost option without any significant investment. In effect, AirBnB wants to be a hotelier that owns no hotel rooms, pays no hospitality taxes, and has no legal responsibility for anything that happens in a space they rented.

That AirBnB can't pick and choose the tax, safety, and other regulations that apply to their 'service' isn't discriminatory against AirBnB, it is treating everyone equally.

Re:I'm confused...

[thegarbz]

cities like NYC have very carefully-crafted laws regarding hotels designed to protect the rights and safety of both the hotelier and the guest

I'm sure this is exactly what happened as shown by this example of the powerful hotel lobby. It's all for guest safety. /sarcsam

Re:I'm confused...

[ooloorie]

That AirBnB can't pick and choose the tax, safety, and other regulations that apply to their 'service' isn't discriminatory against AirBnB, it is treating everyone equally.

AirBnB isn't picking anything. They are hooking up private property owners with private guests. This is no different from renting out rooms on Craigslist or having a Bed&Breakfast, except that it is actually safer for both renters and hosts.

Re:I'm confused...

[david_thornley]

You can't have one set of renting laws (which cost money to implement) for commercial apartments and have none for people renting out a room in their home.

Actually, you can, if the operations are sufficiently distinct. Laws are often different for commercial and private operations. Uber provides a taxi service without making sure the drivers have commercial licenses and insurance, so they can operate less expensively than conventional taxis that have to obey the law. AirBnB provides a hotel service that doesn't have to follow hotel laws. Each builds on private operations: nobody's going to get after me for taking a twenty to drive someone I know somewhere, or for letting someone I know stay in my house while paying me money.

One thing the Internet does is blur the lines between personal activity and commercial activity.

Re:Hotel CEO Openly Does His Job

[Gr8Apes]

Markets are great problem solvers, but they're based on the idea of people acting in self-interest

Markets may appear to solve problems, until the end results occur: a monopoly

ideally within a framework that discourages abuse.

Ah, yes, regulation.

So why don't these owners that want to do this....

[mark-t]

... just get a bed and breakfast license, and then be exempt anyways? Home-based business licenses aren't *THAT* expensive, after all.

While it means you'd have to pay tax on the money you make from rentals... that's what you were supposed to be doing all along, right?

I protest

[fulldecent]

Whereas my agreements with temporary tenants are mutually consensual
and there are no complaints from my neighbors
and justification for this law is to control housing prices
now therefore I do not recognize the legislature's authority to make this regulation.

I will continue to rent out my room in short terms. But I will now call it a long-term lease with early cancellation provisions. Or I will call it a house sale with temporary back-out period. Or I'll call it housesitting.

This generation is finally getting involved in local politics in the best way. They are circumventing the letter of unjust laws and following the spirit of the correct constitution. This demonstrates knowledge of law, civil disobedience and allegiance to the constitution, what could be better?

Re:I protest

[meta-monkey]

what could be better?

Gallows in the public square?

Re:I protest

[Actually, I do RTFA]

and there are no complaints from my neighbors

We make laws in part to stop people from having to knock on people like you (let's call them "assholes") door at all hours to complain about stuff. "I just parked in their driveway, and they didn't complain." or, more politically, "I just grabbed her by the pussy".

Zoning laws are your neighbors registering issues. Passing laws is your neighbors registering issues.

justification for this law is to control housing prices

But just because you don't like the justification, that doesn't mean you can ignore the law. I mean, if you want to commit civil disobedience and take your lumps, okay. If you say "the odds/cost of getting caught are low and the benefit high (ala speeding)" its consistent. But you don't get to ignore laws because you dislike their motivation. Or, if you feel you have that right, please let us know and we won't send the police when a communist takes + uses your stuff while you are gone.

will continue to rent out my room in short terms. But I will now call it...

This is why the law is (a) huge and (b) interpreted by people, not computers. Call it what you will. If that's how it was clearly supposed to be interpreted, expect to be dragged before a court. Ultimately, that's one of the reasons for a jury. Because if 12 people call "bullshit" on your excuse...

Re:Duh

[BubbaDave]

I'm paying too much already and it's going up enough I may no longer be able to afford it many more years- because I earn just a little too much!
I am dropping down a level and will be paying about the same or a little more.

That's one way- all the people I'm supporting because it's just another damn tax, and I already pay plenty of taxes, am just about taxed to death in fact.

It's destroying healthcare for me, and when I and others pay less and less and eventually stop paying, it'll mean less money into the system.

Re:Duh

[Archangel Michael]

http://fortune.com/2016/10/25/...

The Obamacare "Chickens have come home to roost". Everything predicted is coming to fruition, and the people who created the mess, are all running around saying that they are the only ones able to fix the mess they created.

How does that work?

It doesn't. It can't. It was never supposed to work. It was simply the path to single payer that liberals want. They just lied to get the whole thing going.

Next up the anecdotal evidence "I have insurance now, even though I have cancer" stories.

Why Statists love rent-control

[mi]

such yuuuge failures, the lot of them, amirite? /s

Not sure about these other regions, but the housing situation in NYC — and that's the topic — surely is a failure. The rent-control was introduced to the city in 1943 as a temporary measure to protect families of servicemen from "greedy landlords" jacking up the prices, while the men were at war. Housing remains very expensive. Landlords wary of difficulties evicting bad tenants are very particular about who they rent to — insisting on credit-reports, income tax return-copies, and background checks.

Meanwhile, well-connected politicians — especially the "fighters for affordable housing" get such subsidized apartments for themselves — and not just one, but up to four sometimes.

Unfair, inefficient, corruption-prone — what's not to like about Statism?

Re:Not Anti-AirBNB

[Archangel Michael]

The law doesn't protect anyone, except the special interests that are having their industries threatened. There is absolutely no reason other than to stripmine taxes and protect the status quo for these rules. The ONLY ones complaining are those that have something to lose. That is the way of Capitalism, compete or die. The protected industries can't compete, so they will either die, or change the rules (like this) in order so they don't have to compete.

Re:Good

[meta-monkey]

the economy sucks balls. On the other hand, if you have a better idea, we're all ears.

Deport illegals, shut down immigration, ban H1-Bs, kill NAFTA, kill TPP, enact protectionist tariffs as needed, vote Trump.

Re:Good news!

[Archangel Michael]

Sounds good to me. And then, when your own property values dive, and you can't afford to live there, because you now live in a ghost town, and you don't have any workers for your cymbal factory, I'll be happy.

In other words, we all can play "what if" in such a way that it looks stupid.

And yes, I do love the Free Market. It allows for the most efficient use of capital and resources.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[MitchDev]

You mis-spelled "Republican", not "Muslim"

Re:Hotel CEO Openly Does His Job

[Archangel Michael]

Monopolies are only temporary. They eventually die under their own weight. We (people in general) tend to look for quick and easy solutions so they aren't tolerated very well, when you can vote them out of business. But once you can vote a Monopoly out of business, you can vote any business out of business.

I call this the rule of unintended consequences. My best example is the rise of Linux in the era of Microsoft Monopoly. The Microsoft Monopoly created the need for an alternative (Linux) and Linus found a way (GPL) that would protect his new creation against being taken over by the monopoly. The combination (GPL, Linux Code) has proven to be Microsoft's biggest competitor, and they really have no ability to counter it. I personally doubt Linux would have had that success it has, without Microsoft Monopoly. We are in the age of "Linux on the desktop" except the "desktop" has moved to the pocket (Android), to embedded devices, to all sorts of places Windows can't, and Microsoft can't compete. End of Monopoly. Windows is slowing diminishing in marketplace. Pretty soon, you won't need Windows to run "that one app" that isn't available anywhere else. Someone is building an appliance that does the same thing as "windows / that one app" does.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[Killall -9 Bash]

a big boost in the arm

Corporate people are retarded.

It's either:
"a shot in the arm"
OR
"a big boost"

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[Opportunist]

Seems slandering Jews as moneybags got out of fashion while I wasn't looking. New scapegoat, yay.

Just like the old Armenian said: My dear Children, treasure the Jews. Because who do you think they will come for should they be gone?

Re:Good

[Opportunist]

I should vote for someone whose main business is building houses... and he's the one who is going to get rid of cheap and/or illegal laborers...

I sense a conflict of interest.

Loopholes

[RPI Geek]

Talking about this law, my friend said that he'll just change the wording of his listing to the effect of, "I'm renting this apartment, except for the closet. I reserve the right to enter the apartment and sleep in the closet. Please note that I have never actually done this."

I don't know enough about the new law to know if this is a viable loophole, but I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas.

Support your claim

[Actually, I do RTFA]

When you meddle with the free market, you only make things worse

What makes you think things are worse or less fair? Obviously, any distribution of resources, compared to any other distribution is going to be good for some people and worse for others. I'll say, not only does this rule make things better for the far majority of people, it also makes things far better for the vast majority of people who can vote in NYC elections.

Winnners:

1. Hotels - Obvious
2. Neighbors of AirBnB rentals (at least many) - Many neighbors dislike being next to an AirBnB. This keeps them from having to
3. NYC - NY gets a cut of hotel rates (but not AirBnB), hotel rates going up is good for them.
4. Renters - AirBnB was driving up rental prices, because it was introducing an alternate demand for the resource (apartments) to turn into microtels.
5. Law and Order - Many of these AirBnB rentals were in violation of the very leases that the free market provided to the people subletting on AirBnB. (Note, a lot of those rules were because of the 'neighbors point above')
6. Law and Order (2) - There are many rules about leasing short-term accommodations that were not being followed.

Losers:

1. AirBnB - This one's obvious.
2. Non-rent-controlled landlords - Rents are going to go down.
3. Visitors to NYC who stayed in hotels - Prices are going up.

Uncertain:

1. Visitors who were going to stay in AirBnBs - They'll either have to not come or get pushed to a hotel. However, they also get all the benefits of a regulated experience, which may be worth it. That's a big question mark.

Why shouldn't a city be able to look at those tradeoffs and make a decision?

Re:Support your claim

[mi]

Why shouldn't a city be able to look at those tradeoffs and make a decision?

It is called "private property" — what I do inside my apartment/house is (or ought to be) just as private and out of government's hands as what I do with my body.

Noise and other "Law & Order" issues may be valid considerations — people breaking criminal laws or violating privacy of others should be punished. But that ought not preclude folks from doing what they wish with their property any more, than, for example, fears of pedophilia can allow banning consensual sex between adults.

Before you ask, distinction between people using rented real estate for AirBNB and those profiting from their own is without difference to the topic. Whether or not such subletting is permitted by the lease agreement is between landlords and tenants and is not any of government's concern.

Re:Support your claim

[atticus9]

I think many neighbors dislike being next to an AirBnB in principle, the actual number of incidents of wild parties and so forth are pretty low (the guests get a rating too, so if they abuse the place other people won't host them). It's more like neighbors are so sure it's going to be terrible, that even if nothing happens, they'll still complain because they were on edge the whole time.

Re:Support your claim

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's more like neighbors are so sure it's going to be terrible, that even if nothing happens, they'll still complain because they were on edge the whole time.

Which seems valid. I mean, even if they never accidentally released it, you wouldn't want your neighbor to do small pox experiments.

Re:Support your claim

[fluffernutter]

Fine, then modify your apartment so that no noise could theoretically get out of it and rent it out. Until you do that, you are NOT just doing what you want within your walls.

Re:Support your claim

[mi]

Fine, then modify your apartment so that no noise could theoretically get out of it and rent it out.

This is an onerous and ridiculous requirement. Some amount of noise is normal and to be expected. Especially — during the day.

If it is excessive — call police.

Re:Support your claim

[fluffernutter]

Call the police? Over and over? If it is a permanent tenant than the police can escalate on them, but if it is a new tenant every weekend you're sentencing people to calling the police weekly.

Re:Support your claim

[mi]

Once again, none of this is justification for preemptively intervening into what an owner can do with his property. Unless you are willing to accept the argument, that, for example, promiscuity increases the dangers of STDs and so the government is justified in limiting sex between consenting adults.

Re:Support your claim

[fluffernutter]

Sure the owner can do whatever he wants with his property, but the problem is, the owner has no way to contain sound on his property does he? So he interferes with the property of others. I will adamantly defend an owner's right to use his/her property as he/she sees fit so long as they prepare it such that it is impossible for any tenant to create sound that leaves the property and enters another.

Re:Support your claim

[Tablizer]

If one's neighbor pack their house with lots of renters to make money, there will likely be more parked cars, plumbing trucks, and noise in the neighborhood, making is less pleasant to the neighbors of the renter, and lower their property values.

In economics this is called "externalities": Person A gets the profits and Person B gets the headaches caused by A's actions.

Why should Person B just have to accept it?

Re:Support your claim

[david_thornley]

People who are partying can be noisy outside the house or apartment they're in. They can do other things, like pee or vomit, and they're unlikely to be so considerate as to not do it where it affects the neighbors.

Re:Support your claim

[mi]

so long as they prepare it such that it is impossible for any tenant to create sound that leaves the property and enters another.

Once again, you are imposing this impossible requirement unfairly. A property owner can be expected to be considerate — and demand same of his tenants, whether short- or long-term. Placing additional sound-proofing requirements on some owners, but not others — depending on their use of the property — is wrong.

Re:Hotel CEO Openly Does His Job

[Gr8Apes]

Monopolies are only temporary. They eventually die under their own weight.

You'll need to provide proof that monopolies are temporary. Every monopoly I'm aware of has had significant action of one form or another occurred to remove its dominance.

My best example is the rise of Linux in the era of Microsoft Monopoly. The Microsoft Monopoly created the need for an alternative (Linux) and Linus found a way (GPL) that would protect his new creation against being taken over by the monopoly.

The Microsoft monopoly was curtailed by several regulatory actions. Linux really came about after those rulings were already in place.

We are in the age of "Linux on the desktop" except the "desktop" has moved to the pocket (Android), to embedded devices, to all sorts of places Windows can't, and Microsoft can't compete.

Make no mistake, the end of Windows, and Microsoft, will come about because of key anti-competitive rulings that prevented Microsoft from owning various emerging markets, starting with the API rulings - DR DOS definitely affected MS's API disclosures, the internet - remember IE6 marketshare? and MS-Java - Java, despite what many want to believe, was probably the biggest boost to Linux servers gaining market share, and perhaps the migration of many devs to Apple systems as they were now working on *nix systems so why have a shitty windows workstation that didn't even have the ability of supporting standard case sensitive file systems and used the non-standard backslash in paths?

Once MS was prevented from leveraging its dominance in desktop OSes into other business areas via a host of court actions and regulatory rulings, some of which significantly impacted MS's ability to "innovate", the door was opened to competitors.

Standard Oil was broken up by government regulators. So were the Railroad Robber Barons. AT&T, also. If you want to go earlier, The Dutch East India Company was pretty much physically destroyed by English attacks after its own mismanagement over an 80 year period weakened its books resulting in it being finally dissolved, and the British East India Company suffered massive losses due to several armed conflicts against its interests, resulting in it also finally being dissolved by a government act.

So, in no case did a monopoly die under its own weight. In fact, even despite horrible mismanagement a partial monopoly had no problem staying in business for decades.

You forgot one of the losers

[tacokill]

PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS who can and should be able to use their private property however they choose.

Re:You forgot one of the losers

[Pfhorrest]

Use your property however you damn well please, but expecting government to enforce contracts forcing someone else to pay you a permanent fee for the temporary use of your property is not "using your property".

Re:You forgot one of the losers

[wyHunter]

We are discussing the People's Republic of New York - there are no private property owners, there are merely private custodians of public property.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[kenwd0elq]

This is actually known as "rent-seeking"; a businessman uses the power of government to attack other businesses. Because it's easier for a big business to get the government to attack small businesses (because small businesses don't have a gross of lawyers on retainer) than it is for the big business to actually do BUSINESS in an efficient way.

Re:Solution

[hackwrench]

Unfortunately, that's not going to work, because like with communism, people just don't work that way. If they could solve the problem they were intended to solve, the problem they were intended to solve wouldn't be a problem.

Re:So why don't these owners that want to do this.

[mark-t]

What.... you're saying you need a full hotel license to run even a small B&B in NYC? Wow.

Easy solution

[tacokill]

Call the police and have the police arrest them -- because growing weed and making meth are illegal regardless of where it's being done (sans marijuana legal states). Obviously, private property rights aren't unlimited but running a drug lab in your home is a far cry from taking a few bucks from tourists for glorified house sitting.

It's clear to me that this is just the rent seekers (hotel owners) trying to keep the competition out (the AirBnB model). It has nothing to do with safety or property rights issues except that the hotel owners have employed their local politicians to help them pass the necessary laws. It's pretty obvious what is going on, no?

Re:Easy solution

[fluffernutter]

And then the next one? and the next? next? next? How many times should a person be calling the police, remember some places will get a steady flow of new scumbags.

Wow

[HMFIC]

I cannot believe that anyone would allow their government to tell them who can stay in their home, and under what terms, to protect the hotel industry. You deserve the government you have.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[Pfhorrest]

Rent-seeking is a lot broader than using the power of government to attack other businesses. It's any economic practice that seeks to use some kind of privileged access to something, being the gatekeeper of something, to leverage an unearned income.

I know most people would say otherwise but I strongly contend that rent in the ordinary sense of the word is exactly that. The housekeeping that a hotel/BnB/etc provide is certainly a real service that they could charge for as such, but the model of "I have a thing I'm not using, you need to use a thing you don't have, give me money I can keep forever and I'll let you borrow it for a while" is exactly the kind of gatekeeper behavior that defines rent-seeking.

If you want to profit off of something you own and aren't using yourself, sell it.

Double edged sword

[fluffernutter]

Regulation is ALWAYS a double edges sword. It's the same with the taxi drivers. The important thing to focus on is that our world is better if resist a race to the bottom.

Re:Not middle class owners

[fluffernutter]

Exactly. Why is the Air BnB host allowed to erode the property value of the neighbours for their own gain? Oh yeah, because 'business' and all that. Business sucks.

Re:Solution

[fluffernutter]

95% of all people follow rules. This is why that amount is being left out of the economy. They are too honest.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[fluffernutter]

The important thing to focus on is that home owners who do not want to participate in this are not affected by it. If you want to Air BnB your house with no one else for miles around then fine, but don't expect other people to live with it. Houses are closely spaced and it is a life impacting and property value affecting thing. If the end affect is that some greedy bastards get a bit more money I think that is a fair trade-off. It's not like the hotel industry isn't fairly competitive as it is and there are still choices.

Re:Hotel CEO Openly Does His Job

[Jack9]

> The choice of the word "openly" in the headline shows a poor understanding of capitalism in particular, and society in general

It shows the current understanding of the political system and how misrepresentation and corruption is effective and unpunished. You are thinking about it in childish terms, which is the hope of those actors.

Re: except it wasn't people renting out their room

[lucm]

Read some of those stories.

http://www.airbnbhell.com/

Re: except it wasn't people renting out their room

[fluffernutter]

There are still zones in this example.

Re: except it wasn't people renting out their room

[fluffernutter]

The only way this works is for the air bnb owner to be charged as if they were the repeat offender. An air bnb could have problems 20 times in a year without one repeat, that's the problem. Hold the owner responsible and this all goes away.

Re: except it wasn't people renting out their room

[ooloorie]

Ah, the predictable bullshit response. You put up "no control or planning" and "no zones" as a red herring, setting up a false dichotomy. All I said was that "libertarians object to subsidize housing". The rest is your own delusions and attempts to derail the discussion. You're a dishonest, manpulative prick.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[lsatenstein]

laws and regulations give and unfair advantage to those who break them(like uber and airbnb) with impunity through loop holes, and to those who are well established(like the hotels here and regular taxi services) and can ensure the strict enforcement of them.

laws and regulations are unfair to those who are law abiding, in a environment where others do not follow them.

solution is to, have the least amount of laws and regulations practically possible, with least amount of complexity, and ensure these fewer simpler rules are followed.

I am a traveller. When I visit a second major city, I post the info on Facebook. I am able to pick up 3 or 4 passengers to cover the costs and some. Bus/train is about $100.00 each way. My sharing fee is one third of that.
When I am in the other city, I can't pay $170/day for hotel, ABnB allows me to stay overnight a few days at $70/day. Thats what I, as a retiree can afford.

ABnB posters will make new breakable leases. Lease according to the rules, with a penalty if the leasehttps://news.slashdot.org/story/16/10/27/0541223/hotel-ceo-openly-celebrates-higher-prices-after-anti-airbnb-law-passes# is broken before it's term. Or there is a sublet provision in the lease. Hotels are for corporate travellers.

Re:Duh

[david_thornley]

It was a step towards getting affordable universal health care, like all other developed nations and many developing nations have. All countries pay considerably less per capita for health care than we do, and many have better public health statistics.

Re:Hotel CEO Openly Does His Job

[david_thornley]

Monopolies are only temporary. They eventually die under their own weight.

Monopolies are results of high barriers to entry, which can be all sorts of things. If the barriers are lower, we get a limited number of companies providing a good or service, and it's to their advantage to collude to get monopoly pricing. If the barriers are low enough (and that can happen from technological advances) other people will move into the market and break the cartel.

On desktops and laptops, Microsoft Windows has something over a 90% market share, and it has massive network advantages. Linux has something over 1% market share. What iOS and Android devices have done is reduce the number of people who need desktops and laptops, making Microsoft's monopoly less lucrative, but it's still there. There's a large number of applications that are not suited for a phone or tablet, and they aren't taking over in the foreseeable future. PC sales have dipped, but seem to be stabilizing.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[michael_wojcik]

You are David Ricardo and I claim my $5.

Seriously, of course renting real property is rent; and seeking renters for real property (or trying to acquire real property to rent, etc) is rent-seeking. The problem is that "rent-seeking" has become a favorite insult of a certain type, who then shy away from applying it to activities they approve of.

And renting property is almost certainly indispensable to a modern capitalist economy. It's a way of capturing inefficiencies from property that no one actor wants to use all the time. When I travel, I want to be able to rent a room and a car; I don't want to have to purchase them and then sell them again when I leave. You can envision other structures, such as cooperative ownership, but those either become rent under a flimsy disguise, or new inefficiencies, or both. Renting increases the utilization of goods and thereby increases efficiency.

Of course rent and rent-seeking can be abusive, and Ricardo was working at a time when such abuses were readily apparent, with land ownership extremely concentrated, and landowners using political power to create distortions like the Corn Laws. That's why we need market forces and regulation (I don't believe we can get by with just one or the other) to oppose powerful rent-seekers (who, of course, can be found in both the private and public sectors). But just doing away with rent entirely is a non-starter.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[Pfhorrest]

It's a way of capturing inefficiencies from property that no one actor wants to use all the time. When I travel, I want to be able to rent a room and a car; I don't want to have to purchase them and then sell them again when I leave.

I hear this argument all the time, but aside from artificially imposed hoops in the process buying and selling real estate (vs anything else), why would that be so awful? You would need sufficient liquidity in the market of course, for it to not be terribly inconvenient, and someone willing to sell to you on long terms (many small payments over time, so you can start right away) and buy on short terms (cash you out all at once, so you can leave right away), but there's a business opportunity for someone in providing that, at a cost to you (the difference between their sale price and purchase price), without it technically being rent, and in that process circumventing the possible abuses of rent. If the convenience isn't worth the cost, if you're not someone moving quickly from place to place but just someone trying to live somewhere for a good long while and unable to buy in the kind of markets we have today, you could find another seller/buyer and save yourself some money. A lot of money, for the long-term renter. The less temporary your use of the property, the more worthwhile it becomes, and the less the cost to you per time in occupancy, and so the less "rent-like" the arrangement becomes, to the point that people who currently spend their entire lives (or families who spend generations) renting could actually end that cycle of poverty and end up owning something to their name for all the money they've spent on housing. Without inconveniencing travelers at all, who are happy to pay for the convenience.

Re:Good

[Deliveranc3]

Regulate pricing specifically in supermarkets and malls. Force prices down not up. High prices only benefit business owners not workers, employees or customers.

How Airbnb can create alliances vs lawsuits

[timtouchette]

Airbnb should seek out regulation and alliances to grow their industry - instead of fighting with hotels, government, neighbors and advocates of affordable housing- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[michael_wojcik]

You think purchasing a room when I arrive in a city late at night, and then selling it on in a day or two, is a good idea?

That's so bafflingly, astoundingly wrongheaded that I doubt it's worth continuing the discussion. However:

First, the "artificially imposed hoops in the process [of] buying and selling real estate" exist for excellent reasons. Of course, everything involved in the transfer of real estate is "artificial"; real-estate sales do not exist in nature. And things like title, proof of insurance, inspections, disclosures, and so on all serve critical roles in protecting the least-powerful parties involved in real-estate ownership. Anyone who doesn't understand that is too ignorant to propose changes to the system (or simply insane). The ownership of real estate was not in some glorious prelapsarian state of ease, convenience, and justice before modern ideas of title, code-compliance, and the like were introduced.

Second, your utopian vision glosses over some rather gaping holes, such as precisely how you'd go about "find[ing] another seller/buyer" on demand and at minimal cost. And the financial structure of "sell[ing] on long terms .. and buy[ing] on short terms" is exactly what we have today for both real estate and automobiles, through the magic of loans. That opportunity already exists, and renters with sufficient financial leverage can engage in a process called "buying a house" if they want out of the rental market.

Third, if the scheme you propose is workable, then why isn't someone doing it? Aside, of course, from the ways in which they are already doing it.

Re:Using the law to give himself an unfair advanta

[Pfhorrest]

how you'd go about find[ing] another seller/buyer" on demand and at minimal cost

The whole point of my post was that, in absence of the ability to rent, there would be demand for on-demand buyer/sellers of property... and that that would come at a cost, equivalent to the convenience afforded by them, which should be similar to the cost of renting if what you're really paying for there is the same convenience. For those not willing to pay that cost, the effort of finding a buyer or seller to save that money may be more worth it.

I spent the first decade of my adult life renting a bedroom in a house full of ever-shifting strangers where we all shared a lease and technically rented the whole house and had to find replacement housemates when others moved out or else be stuck with the cost of their rent ourselves -- basically doing the work of the landlord in finding and vetting tenants, except without any of the powers of the landlord to get rid of them if we didn't like them, leaving me stuck for years in a house full of shitheads I could do nothing about -- because that was the only kind of housing that left me any room to save to eventually escape to something better (which I eventually did). I could have just moved somewhere else every time a new asshat moved in to where I was already, but that would have cost me a lot of money. I stayed and put up with their shit and fought to find better people so as to save money.

Let transient passers-through pay for the convenience if it's worth it to them. Those of us just looking to live somewhere long term can take the time to see to it that that doesn't cost us an arm and a leg.

the magic of loans

Which come at interest, which is just rent on money and so has the exact same problems, except that the interest alone on the smallest possible home loan can easily exceed the lowest alternative rent, and leave someone trying to eventually just own something even further from that goal.

renters with sufficient financial leverage

That is the entire purpose of my objection to rent. Huge swathes of people are perpetually unable to escape from renting. I myself, making twice what the median person makes, face a lifelong uphill battle to be able to stop renting either property directly or the money with which to buy it some day before I die, and I don't know if that's something I will ever achieve. Neither of my parents could, and most of my peers in my generation seem to be making less progress than even I. Almost nobody has "sufficient financial leverage" and that creates a perpetual underclass of propertyless serfs working mostly just to find the money with which to pay rent to the lords on whose land they live and not for their own benefit.

the scheme you propose is workable, then why isn't someone doing it?

If running a plantation with paid labor is workable, why would anyone use slaves? Because slave labor is more beneficial... to the slaveholder. And renting is more beneficial to the landowner. The point is merely that in absence of legal protection of such unjust practices, alternatives would be forced into existence, and such alternatives are possible; it wouldn't be the end of the world, just the end of an unjust advantage some people hold over others.

Re:Hotel CEO Openly Does His Job

[Gr8Apes]

On desktops and laptops, Microsoft Windows has something over a 90% market share, and it has massive network advantages. ... What iOS and Android devices have done is reduce the number of people who need desktops and laptops, making Microsoft's monopoly less lucrative, but it's still there.

Yes, MS still has a 90+% desktop share. What iOS and Android have done is break the app monopoly MS was leveraging to stifle competition to its service suite. Now that a large majority of people access web mail via something other than IE, web mail has to be standards compliant to interoperate between the clients. Same for Calendaring (which I will readily admit MS got right from the client side in 97 and since screwed it up to the point its almost as bad as all the other calendaring solutions) The same can be said for all web and internet service based systems, because of iOS and Android they all pay attention somewhat to standards to work across all platforms, instead of just coding for the MS browser of the day and letting everyone else deal with it.