[stephengillie]

"Loaded language" makes it sound like these are fully legitimate businesses on the receiving end of undue criticism. But then you point out how these businesses are operating in the same market, but avoiding the market regulation, almost as though they are operating in a quasi-illegal state.

Why do you believe the regulation of these markets is particularly onerous? Can you provide some specific examples?

[wyager]

> Why do you believe the regulation of these markets is particularly onerous? Can you provide some specific examples?

Have you ever stayed in a hotel, and have you ever stayed in an AirBnB? For me, in both cases, the answer is "many times", and the overwhelmingly clear conclusion is that AirBnB offers a vastly superior experience to staying in a hotel for a vastly lower cost. If you look at regional hotel regs; it's clear where the difference is going. Resort taxes, occupancy taxes, inspection and certification fees, etc. For all their costs and alleged benefits, they don't actually manage to make the hotel experience any better or safer than staying in an AirBnB.

[stephengillie]

You're right those taxes make no direct difference to the accommodation. They're not supposed to. The taxes pay for the city and public amenities, like the street outside the hotel, and maybe the city's stadium and sports teams. How do the AirBnB's neighbors feel about having renters use their streets without paying? Or about enjoying the prestige of being in a city with multiple pro sports teams, without helping with that bill?

[digitaltrees]

If the product is better, even after paying equivalent tax and regulatory compliance costs, the yes, that is a deserved victory for AirBnB that I would support and encourage.

The problem, is that it is impossible to compare the two products if a large part of the appeal is lower cost due to regulatory arbitrage.

If an AirBnB host decided to operate a brothel, some may deem that to be a superior product to a standard AirBnB host...not really a fair comparison.