[warcher]

The issue in my mind is that AirBNB actively thwarts attempts by landlords, HOAs, and zoning officials to enforce their contracts. If it was all above-board, I'd have no issues. Truly. But frankly, if AirBNB was compliant with leases, HOAs, and zoning, they'd be out of business. And they know it.

People talk a lot about the free market, but I see a lot of externalities at play here. Am I as a landlord to be held responsible for the damage to my units caused by somebody running a gypsy hotel, in explicit violation of their lease, paying me not one extra penny? Are their neighbors obligated to deal with a bunch of spring breakers partying through the wall, also for free?

This whole thing smells like a bunch of valley billionaires arguing that they should be above the law so they can make their IPO valuation come out right.

[user5994461]

Properties have been sublet and let on the black markets forever. airbnb is not changing much of that, only making it more visible.

Most airbnb landlords will quickly realize that it takes a huge amount of work to welcome guest for short stays, then they'll realize that they might loose a lot of money if not filled all the time.

[eric_h]

> airbnb is not changing much of that, only making it more visible.

I think it is grossly inflating the scale at which it is now possible.

[user5994461]

Airbnb is a drop in the ocean, I guarantee you.

[eric_h]

Oh for sure. I've known plenty of people who've done relatively brief (~ 2mo) sublets completely against leases etc (of course NYC is still a bit of a Wild West as far as housing is concerned, particularly at the more affordable end of the rental market).

My point was that AirBnB has vastly inflated the potential scale of revolving door short black market sublets (the loud, drunken vacationers that seem to be the source of most disgruntlement/anti AirBnB mentality here in the HN comments) much more than, say, craigslist.

[user5994461]

The media are vocals about a few big cities on a few topics. It brings a lot of readers. Nothing special, it's always been the wild west over there.

AirBnb is already self regulating quickly: You rent a property, the guests damage it, you're not renting it on airbnb again for the next decade.

Or you simply realize that it's not sustainable. Revolving door short sublets are, in fact, usually not sustainable.

[eric_h]

Fair point - again dependent on the property/neighborhood. I stayed in an AirBnB in Denver that was one of three cookie cutter buildings next to each other each on about 1/4 acre, built sometime in the last 5-10 years, all clearly used exclusively as short term rentals (as best I could tell).

Great AirBnB experience, literally no complaints, and no neighbors close enough to give us the stink eye (admittedly we were staying in the one that was in the middle of the three on that street). Mind you we were generally respectful and there for a very short time, not enough to really piss anyone off.

That seems sustainable to me, whether or not it's legal.

People AirBnB'ing their apartment in my current building (which has a 24 hour doorman/woman/person who pretty much knows everyone who lives there? obviously that shit wouldn't fly for long, never mind that it's flagrantly against the lease we all signed, there's no way to fly under the radar).

[warcher]

I find the notion of business "self regulating" to be no more or less absurd for AirBnb than I would an oil or coal company. Of course I understand why they'd make the argument, I just can't fathom who would believe them here in the 21st century.