[nommm-nommm]

You can't sell an unsafe car. You can't run an unsafe restaurant. You can't build an unsafe building. You can't rent an unsafe home. You can't drive in an unsafe manner. You can't allow an unsafe number of people in your business. You can't run an unsafe salon. You can't practice medicine in an unsafe manner. You can't sell unsafe food.

And you can't run an unsafe hotel.

[tim333]

Your usual airbnb property is not "an unsafe hotel." My flat is presently being let on airbnb and isn't suddenly unsafe because someone else is in it rather than me.

[ryanbrunner]

In my experience, the vast (90+%) of Airbnb properties share more in common with a hotel room than an apartment that is occasionally rented out.

[dang]

My experience is the opposite - 90% of the places I've stayed have clearly been people's homes or cottages. At least in the US. In Europe it was different but for me that's a much smaller sample size.

[drewmate]

I have the same experience as yours. Of the 7-8 AirBNBs I have stayed at, only 1 felt like a hotel (it was in Hong Kong, and the cheapest place I could find.)

On the other hand, some of my best travel experiences have been eating meals with hosts, staying up talking about life and drinking by a bonfire with hosts, and otherwise getting the authentic AirBNB experience. Of course I wouldn't say that the hotel-type experience isn't out there (it may even be cheaper than hotels) but that's not why I do AirBNB. It would be a shame (both for hosts and guests) to have fewer opportunities like this available.

[tptacek]

Are you looking for a kind of place that keeps you away from the illegal hotels? Is there a price point thing, or neighborhoods you tend to stay in? I have the same experience as you do, but I'm avoiding the kinds of searches that would ever put me in an illegal hotel.

[dang]

I'm sure I am, because I prefer staying in actual flats and cottages, which is why I use Airbnb in the first place (that and price). On the other hand I don't see many listings that don't fit that description, and I always select the 'entire home/apt' filter, which presumably is where hotel-like operations would show up. It must vary a lot by local market.

[tptacek]

When I read stories like these and think about my condo-owning NYC friends complaints about Abnb, I usually start wondering if the kinds of searches I'm giving Abnb are just not representative of the majority of users, and so I'm not really noticing the negative externalities they're creating.

[ceejayoz]

> My flat is presently being let on airbnb and isn't suddenly unsafe because someone else is in it rather than me.

You might not have changed the smoke detector batteries in a decade, though. Fine if you want to risk your own life that way, but we've decided as a society that renting a hotel room means extra safety requirements and checks to protect the guests.

[noarchy]

>Fine if you want to risk your own life that way, but we've decided as a society that renting a hotel room means extra safety requirements and checks to protect the guests.

Sorry, how did "we as a society" decide that? Governments are deciding the things you're talking about. What we as a society can do, is post and read reviews on hotels and Airbnb rentals, and we certainly do this.

[Frondo]

You are engaged in the political process aside from once-every-few-years voting, right? That's how "we as a society" decided it.

If all you do is punch a ballot, yeah, that's lazy, and yeah, you're basically letting other people decide these things for you.

[noarchy]

>You are engaged in the political process aside from once-every-few-years voting, right?

I certainly have and do, and it is a pretty frustrating thing with which to deal. Thank goodness society is not bound by what government can do.

>That's how "we as a society" decided it.

I think that's a pretty low standard for judging society's opinion on anything. You get a lot more feedback on what society thinks by examining the day to day transactions and exchanges we're all doing.

[ceejayoz]

> Governments are deciding the things you're talking about.

Governments are made up of our elected representatives and those our elected representatives appoint/hire. If we're unhappy with those decisions, we vote for someone else and tell them to change them. See Trump and the EPA for a current-events sample of this in action - the Right feels things are too regulated, they won the election, and now we're getting a bunch of regulations removed (to our likely detriment, IMO).

[noarchy]

>Governments are made up of our elected representatives and those our elected representatives appoint/hire. If we're unhappy with those decisions, we vote for someone else and tell them to change them. See Trump and the EPA for a current-events sample of this in action - the Right feels things are too regulated, they won the election, and now we're getting a bunch of regulations removed (to our likely detriment, IMO).

This paints a rosier picture about the possibilities of change in such systems than I think are warranted, though I know some might argue that the sclerosis of politics is a feature as much as it is a drawback. That said, we make decisions, sometimes daily, regarding things we want in life. It may be as simple as which kinds of coffee to drink, or which laptop to buy, and those choices result in areas of society that can and do change with some speed.

[ceejayoz]

Those daily decisions are usually far removed from their externalities. Yes, people will choose the $5 shirt over the $10, but it's hardly a sign that people in our society endorse the child slave labor that's happening behind the scenes. Government regulation happens a lot when individual small decisions eventually lead to things society as a whole doesn't like.

[monkmartinez]

Who defines usual?

Who else has keys to the flat? Are you sure your electrical is up to code? How about plumbing, heating/cooling? Do you have a CO detector?

[rramdin]

Is your flat in compliance with local regulations for disabled persons? Or is the service you're selling only for certain kinds of people?

[DINKDINK]

Is the web service you build accessible by blind and deaf people? Or is the web service you're selling only for "certain kinds of people"

[Spivak]

Why wouldn't it be if the parent is currently living in it? Are the regulations for short-term and long-term rentals different?

[SilasX]

Yes, there are in fact less (or no) disability access requirements for a private residence. The typical home, if used as a hotel, would not be in compliance with access requirements imposed on hotels. This is one way that the deck is stacked against hotels.

[squeaky-clean]

I don't understand this comment or why GP is being downvoted. No, my own home is very wheelchair unfriendly because I am not in a wheelchair.

[nommm-nommm]

So your flat has been inspected by the hotel commission and your hotel permit is displayed in a prominent location in your flat and you've kept logs of all required maintenance and I can view your flat's inspection records?

[exergy]

Huh? Why does he have to do that? I can understand being suspicious of those who actually come and STAY in the Airbnb, but to use your line of argument against the person renting out the room makes no sense to me. What exactly does the hotel permit specify? That the toilet is clean? That the building is structurally sound?

[amyjess]

Among others, that it meets fire codes.

Just wait until an AirBNB customer dies in a fire because the property didn't meet fire safety requirements. AirBNB probably wouldn't survive the fallout.

[magic_beans]

One AirBnB customer DID die from an unsafe tree-swing on the property: https://medium.com/matter/living-and-dying-on-airbnb-6bff8d6...

[enraged_camel]

>>Huh? Why does he have to do that?

Because hotels are subject to those regulations. It's not optional for them. Why should it be optional for AirBnB hosts?

[Karunamon]

Because AirBnB hosts, in general, are not running a hotel.

The distinction is purely legal - in this case, the semantics matter quite a bit.

[enraged_camel]

I don't know if they do. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

At the end of they day they are directly competing with hotels. In order to ensure the competition is fair, they should be subject to the same regulations.

[dragonwriter]

> Because AirBnB hosts, in general, are not running a hotel.

I don't know whether it's the majority, but quite a lot of them are running hotels, though often illegal hotels under local law.

[lightbyte]

>Because AirBnB hosts, in general, are not running a hotel.

Of course they are. Are you paying the host to stay in a room they own? Hotel.

[nommm-nommm]

It certainly depends on where you live but almost all jurisdictions have those sorts of requirements. For example, first thing I saw on Google

>Environmental health specialists inspect every hotel at least twice a year or more often as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the Hotel, Food Service Establishment, and Public Swimming Pool Act of 1985* and the hotel rules and regulations. Current hotel permits must be displayed in a prominent location for the public to view and the inspection report must be available for public scrutiny.

https://www.tn.gov/health/article/eh-hotels#sthash.fTwnqZnV....

[exergy]

Maybe this is more true of countries like India, where I'm from, where I can imagine hygiene standards being more "flexible". But here in Western Europe for example, or the US, airbnbs are almost better maintained than I'd maintain my own house. And I think there's a good reason for this: the impact of reviews. Even in India, I can't imagine a place going far looking like a cheapo dorm room, because people will definitely look at reviews.

[SilasX]

I can understand hotels having a legitimate objection to the differential regulation that gives Airbnb hosts a cost advantage, but there are good reasons for exempting (some) hosts: generally, once you run a business at scale, there's a disconnect that leads to cutting corners with safety, which is what prompts these regulations.

If a hotel room is just one of a thousand properties (the thinking goes) then the owner might be too casual about safety issues -- hence regs to force them to care. But if it's a room in the owner's very own house, there is no such "incentive incompatibility": a fire is much more than just a financial loss for them, so -- if anything -- they're overcautious! Thus, it's reasonable to exempt the renting out of one's primary residence from these additional safety regs.

With that said, your general point still stands: many of these hosts are "superhosts" who rent 3+ properties, which does (from the perspective of regulatory concerns) look like a hotel business and which therefore does merit similar regulation.

[zip1234]

Nobody looks at that when renting a hotel.

[ctrl-j]

Maybe because by and large, hotels have a hard time getting around being inspected. So there is no need for the average consumer to spend the time to do the research so they can say "yep, government regulators are doing a good job!"

As with most regulations, it drives up the cost a bit for the end user, but it's worthwhile - and when done properly, invisible to the consumer.

[subliminalbrad]

Because they don't need to, because it's mandatory for hotels.

[BeetleB]

If the legislation actually tests the safety, instead of a blanket ban, then I can see your point. Because many motels I've stayed at are unsafe. On multiple occasions I've gotten a key card to my room without showing ID (having forgotten it in the room).

[smokeyj]

So the hotel lobby is taking away my choices.. to keep me safe? Now that's some seriously good hospitality. The hotel lobby is like the paternal figure I've always wanted.

[nommm-nommm]

We are talking about safety here.

Safety regulations don't typically form out if nowhere. You grew up in a world where the previous generations lobbied for safety regulations in response to an actual lack of safety. It's like the new anti vaccinations movement- there's a whole generation who grew up not watching children be maimed and killed by what's now vaccine preventable infectious diseases so now suddenly vaccinations are poison. Absolutely no frame of reference.

In terms of safety hotel lobby is pissed because they have to follow regulations and pay associated taxes whereas AirBnB isn't. The hotel lobby certainly would be in favor of loosening safety regulations in general as compliance will certainly cut into their bottom line at least a little.

[erikpukinskis]

You can pretend the conversation is about safety but there's more to it than that. There are legitimate safety regulations, which could be monitored with a $100 random annual inspection. And then there are the actual regulations which are usually just encoding the business practices of the incumbent into law so that other companies with other advantages are impossible to make legal, regardless of safety.

If it were actually about safety, the "hotel commission" would try to make it as easy and as cheap as possible to get inspected. The fact that they don't suggests it's more about gatekeeping.

[matt4077]

Sure, all regulations look like regulatory red tape strangulating the free market.

Until you look at actual, individual, regulations–which tend to be codified common sense.

[erikpukinskis]

Maybe on a per rule basis they tend to be common sense. But if even one rule out of 100 is an unnecessary encoding of business model, then requiring a permit is a de facto monopoly granted to the incumbents.

So even if most rules are common sense, that doesn't change the fact that most permit requirements are predatory business tactics.

I want to feed and house the homeless in my neighborhood but it's illegal due to "safety" concerns. Apparently them sleeping on the street and shitting in the bushes is safer than me building them a tiny house with a composting toilet and a wash basin.

[wanderer2323]

> The hotel lobby certainly would be in favor of loosening safety regulations in general as compliance will certainly cut into their bottom line at least a little.

I'm pretty sure they would be in favor of tightening regulations as much as possible, as long as those regulations are draconically enforced. The incumbents can comply with anything and pass the buck to the customer while any potential competitor cannot enter the market because the upfront regulatory cost is so immense.

[smokeyj]

> You grew up in a world where the previous generations lobbied for safety regulations in response to an actual lack of safety

Sure hope you're not talking about the tobacco lobby. Tell me which company paid for what safety regulation. I'd like to applaud these upstanding corporate citizens.

[monkmartinez]

Great observation. Fire inspectors perform an entirely different inspection on commercial property than that of a SFR or even multi family residence. There is a reason and it was paid in blood.

[coredog64]

> You can't sell an unsafe car.

I'd like to address this. Not everyone can afford a new car complete with mandatory TPMS, side airbags, and traction control. When we as a society decide to put requirements on new cars, we price some marginal consumers out of a new car and into a less-safe used car.

As the price of new cars increases, so to does the price of those used cars. So there again, we're pushing less well off consumers into cars that aren't as safe.

Personally, I think manufacturers should have the ability to sell any car they want. At the same time, they should be required to put a notice on the window sticker that says "We used the value of $X to drive the design of our safety features" (or something like that). If you want an ultra-safe car, you look for one that has $1,000,000. But people knowingly buy motorcycles and Corvettes, so obviously not everyone has the same tolerance for risk.

[learc83]

Car safety isn't just about the people driving them. Many car safety features like anti-lock breaks, traction control, and backup cameras are just as helpful for everyone outside of the car as they are for people inside the card.

Forcing unsafe cars out of the market through attrition has benefits for everyone else.

[mullen]

Unsafe cars are also raise the death raise inside and outside of the car and raises health costs that are borne by all members of society. People should not be allowed to drive unsafe cars.

[ceejayoz]

They're not in New York state - your car must pass an annual safety inspection. IIRC when I lived in Ohio they had a similar inspection regime.

[ballenf]

And you shouldn't apply car safety rules to motorcycles or bicycles.

Airbnb isn't a hotel. It should have to live by "the rules", but those rules should be tailored to it's industry not a tangentially related industry threatened by its existence.

[athenot]

In this case, Airbnb is a motorcycle with 4 wheels, a roof and windows. While technically still running a motorcycle engine, the perception it is actively courting among its users is that of a car.

So in once camp, people are saying it should be regulated for what it feels like: a car. In the other camp, people are saying that it should be regulated for what it's made of: a motorcycle. There are good (and bad) arguments for both sides.