Slashdot Mirror
Indiana Considers Prohibiting Cities From Banning Airbnb (usnews.com)
"Indiana's cities and towns wouldn't be allowed to put their own restrictions on companies such as Airbnb under a proposal state lawmakers are considering," reports the Associated Press. Slashdot reader El Cubano writes:
The proposed legislation would prohibit local government in the state from banning Airbnb rentals by their residents. There are exceptions for home owner associations (which will still be allowed to ban rentals in their communities) and 180-day per year cap.
It is interesting to see something like this being considered at the state level. Supporters say that they are trying to prevent knee-jerk regulations and to protect an innovative emerging market. At the same time, local authorities are upset that they will no longer have the option to make the determination for themselves.
The bill has already been approved by the Indiana House, as well as a key committee in the Indiana Senate.
It is interesting to see something like this being considered at the state level. Supporters say that they are trying to prevent knee-jerk regulations and to protect an innovative emerging market. At the same time, local authorities are upset that they will no longer have the option to make the determination for themselves.
The bill has already been approved by the Indiana House, as well as a key committee in the Indiana Senate.
So, I am the submitter of the story, and I was really curious about was whether others think this is a good or bad thing. (Since I didn't submit it as an Ask Slashdot I didn't think I should go with questions in the story summary). I will reserve my own thoughts on whether this is good or bad as I am interested in what others have to say on the matter.
Is it good that Airbnb will be allowed to operate statewide, with protection of their innovative approach to the market being enshrined in law?
Alternately, is this an overreach on the part of the part of the state government?
I have to imagine that Airbnb is pleased by a developments like this since it keeps them from having to fight different local regulations in lots of different small jurisdictions.
Generally I think it's a good idea and a move in the right direction, but I would also like to see more responsibility for AirBnB hosts for their guests. Living next to an apartment that's being used more or less exclusively for AirBnB can be taxing if it is handed around between people who enjoy to party, and some apartment are actually being sold as "party location".
The least I'd expect if you turn the apartment next to mine into the noise equivalent of a frat house is that I get an easy way to have fines coming down on your that make you reconsider.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This sounds like something that is better decided at the local level, so the state getting involved seems like overreach to me.
Note that unlike what the title claims, this is not only about banning but also about restricting.There is a difference between renting out your house when you happen to be away and renting it out almost full time. So restrictions on the number of rental days per year can be useful to keep areas that are in demand by tourists as residential areas. 180 days per year is such a generous cap that I'm not sure it would prevent houses from being used as rentals all year round.
I think it's terrible. Localized government should have the power to make decisions about what they want to allow. If the residents don't like it then some of them can go into politics. We need more involvement with politics anyway. AirBNB has serious ramifications for the way cities and towns work. If it chews up all the low-cost housing, where are the burger flippers going to live? It simply cannot be permitted to operate unchecked in a world without sensible rent control systems which effectively ban it anyway, or at least severely limit it.
My favorite AirBNB restriction is the one where you can only AirBNB part of a house. Someone has to be living there. If nobody lives there, then it's not a home and it's not sharing. It's just a hotel or boarding house or short-term rental, and the patron is simply renting it. This has opened up room rentals in houses in some cities. It also helps protect the owner of the building, because there's someone there to call the cops if the renters start trashing the place, but many of them don't actually seem to care about that. I presume they're hoping a renter burns the place down so that they can cash in on their insurance. I wonder what happens when they find out that their insurance company won't cover their commercial venture...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you're a small town, Airbnb might not be a problem for you. I like in Reykjavík where there have been big problems with it. We're a place that's been experiencing very rapid tourism growth. In the pre-Airbnb days, if someone wanted to fill the tourist demand for housing, they'd build a hotel, and in the process end up with rooms for hundreds of people. Nowadays they just rent out residential apartments. Always in the most convenient locations in town. Residents can't compete with the amount of money tourists spend per night, so residents get pushed out of town. This creates resentment.
Beyond that, companies deciding that they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else does always gets on my nerve. If you want to operate a hotel, follow hotel regulations. I agree that there should be "lower-overhead" regulations for little "starter" hotels (aka, anyone who wants to fill the B&B niche). But you don't just go into a market and act like the rules don't apply to you.
IMHO.
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
To my mind this is fundamentally wrong. There is a reason that municipal governments exist - because what's good for the state may not be good in any particular city in that state. It SHOULD be possible for a municipality to make laws or implement programs that do no exist elsewhere in the state and the state should not be able to prevent this unless there is a truly compelling reason (like a constitutional violation). This becomes particularly egregious when you have liberal cities in red states- surely, at least within their own cities, the liberal voters' beliefs should get some traction into the laws they live under ?
It's a gross overreach when a state government interferes with a municipality's attempts to provide free broadband after ISPs failed to cover their citizens.
It is a gross overreach when a city votes to protect trans-rights and a state-law then not only changes the default law in the state to one that denies trans rights but also invalidates the local municipal law and prohibits municipalities from making such laws themselves.
It's a gross overreach when a city, for whatever reason, is told by the state what regulations they can or cannot have on what kinds of businesses. Some business regulations must be on the state or even federal level since they regulate activities which do not remain confined to borders (air and water pollution regulations for example), others are entirely local in their impact and whether those impacts are positive or negative thus entirely depends on the local context - and the municipality should be able to make local rules as appropriate for such activities.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The only ones who should be banning overreach on the local/municipal level is local government representing the neighborhood level. For a state to say this is wrong you must do X to a city is as bad as the federal governement saying the same thing to a state. Not everyone in Indiana have the same thoughts on the matter and it is up to the cities to decide how they want to enforce these policies.
Personally I don't have an issue with AirBnB so long as the owner is present at the location the entire time of the stay, and is accountable for any damage or disturbance caused by the guest including potential crimes that are commited as a result of a previous stay. If they want to be able to absolve themselves of such responsibilities then they need to establish their location as a purely commerical property away from residential areas. But that's just me, because I have had a neighbor use the service which resulted in a party they didn't know which included a drunk person their guest invited over break my door because they thought they were locked out. Cops or no cops, my wife didn't sleep until they were gone.
I used to live next to a place that would have different guests nightly. The street was choked with cars, and you would see 10-20 adults, likely sloppy drunk, all crashed out in/around the rental house. Fights with different people always happened in the wee hours of the morning. To boot, the owner of the property was proud of the fact that he didn't have to bother paying bed taxes, and snickered at the hotels that did.
Needless to say, when I could, I moved elsewhere. I'm really not impressed with AirBnB, because it screws hotels and innkeepers who actually pay their taxes and deal with licensing and other fees.
you don't just go into a market and act like the rules don't apply to you
You do if making money is your over-riding concern.
The whole point of the crop of "disruptive" businesses like Uber and Airbnb is that they've realised that any market where there is regulation can be under-cut by not following those regulations and having to incur the relevant costs.
If you are a psychopath, I imagine that disrupting the pesky regulations over food or drug safety is going to be a popular idea, for instance.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it