[tylermenezes]

I think this is a good example of how playing the hardline, aggressive "disruptor" can backfire.

I've talked to the Airbnb founders a few times, and they're probably the most passionate founders I've met. It's clear that they believe in their vision 100%, even without the money (just look at their history of self-funding for years before they could attract VC interest).

But by refusing to cooperate with cities on some legitimate complaints (like a small number of hosts who own a ton of properties, which is even sketchy to me as a guest), they really brought this hardline pushback on themselves.

[mrgordon]

I'm curious why a superhost renting a bunch of properties is "sketchy" while a corporate hotel brand with many properties is to be trusted. What if the hosts registered LLCs and listed their friendly sounding corporation names instead?

What was sketchy was when I used to have to rent apartments in cities off Craigslist with absolutely no regulation, no escrow, and no reputation to avoid people who literally just finished ripping someone off. This is where many cities seem to want to return.

Since many people prefer to stay in apartments / houses while they travel, some of the hotels will not be needed and can be converted into additional housing. It makes sense that there would be entrepreneurs who learn to make these places attractive to travelers while maintaining low costs to clean and maintain the property. In fact, these places are often better run than a property that is only rented out a few times a year.

If I were the cities, I would focus on regulating the things that really impact quality of life (e.g. having firm penalties for frequent noise violations) without trying to micromanage how people use hotels versus apartments. People will always rent apartments, do house swaps, couchsurf, etc. and its often a win-win for everyone involved. Punish the bad actors, leave people alone who rent a lot of places out but don't trigger complaints, and avoid pushing the movement underground where you can't tax it or try to help with noise violations and other problems.

[detaro]

It's sketchy if they pretend to not be a superhost, and I'd at least suspect that they're not operating entirely proper businesses then too.

[mrgordon]

Well its a bit of a chicken and egg problem then, right? If you say they pretend not to be a superhost, then that seems to imply they have multiple accounts. The only reason they would do this is because their city has put in place strict rules against renting multiple properties out. If the city hadn't put those rules in place, those people would have one account and wouldn't be "sketchy" anymore.

Meanwhile the same people will instead now go to Craigslist or a local equivalent and rent out 50 properties without the need to create any accounts or earn superhost status. They won't report that income, it won't be taxed, and they probably won't have a legitimate business. Somehow this is a win.

[mlthoughts2018]

If you don’t like a law or regulation, and so you lie about or misrepresent something to get around the law or regulation, that makes you sketchy and possibly undeserving of trust or business operation privileges.

You can vote to change the laws or regulations, speak out about them to convince others to do the same, lobby Congress, etc., all while not operating outside of the law in the meantime.

It’s absurd to defend the property owners who are doing this, as if a city having suboptimal regulatory policy just means free reign to violate the law or fraudulently avoid regulations.

> “Meanwhile the same people will instead now go to Craigslist or a local equivalent and rent out 50 properties without the need to create any accounts or earn superhost status. They won't report that income, it won't be taxed, and they probably won't have a legitimate business. Somehow this is a win.”

No. This is a ludicrous counterfactual to compare to. Operating a huge ring of short stay rental units is not just automatically profitable or worthwhile. There isn’t just huge liquid supply of renters willing to do it through some untrusted Craigslist contact, not at all.

It is specifically the Airbnb certification and the tacit endorsement that comes with being part of a mainstream booking platform that makes it attractive for someome to pay to operate a ring of units like this skirting city regulations. This is only enabled by the platform, which is why it is the right point at which to enforce regulations.

The more likely counterfactual is that those units would have been purchased either by people intending to live in them full time, or landlords looking for standard leasing opportunities for longterm tenants, both of which might be a net more productive use for the city overall.

[Isinlor]

> both of which might be a net more productive use for the city overall.

And who is to decide what is more productive? If you happen to think that I'm the less productive, because I guess "reasons", them I'm to be kicked out from a city?

Also, the issue is with cities limiting supply of housing.

[detaro]

> The only reason they would do this is because their city has put in place strict rules against renting multiple properties out.

Or they don't want to follow the laws surrounding businesses renting out properties.

[mrgordon]

Which laws are these? Most hosts are sole proprietors and Airbnb usually takes taxes out automatically during booking. Any income from Airbnb would be paid directly into the users' bank account which leaves a very clear trail of money if they get audited. I haven't heard of a lot of "laws surrounding businesses renting out properties" and most these hosts aren't corporations anyway.

[bradleyjg]

“If only there weren’t laws against robbing banks I’d be a totally upright citizen. It’s law maker’s fault that I’m a criminal!”

[mrgordon]

I never said I supported what they did or that it was someone else’s fault. But if the main argument is that they ran a few vacation rentals at once but did nothing else wrong, then “sketchy” isn’t exactly the label most people would apply. The sublets section of Craigslist is significantly sketchier (it’s often mostly clear scams) than a professional host with five star reviews who lists multiple apartments.

[Isinlor]

- I own property and I want to rent it.

- "Hang the criminal!", says the crowd... Capitalist pig wants to own and profit from something! How dare she/he?!

[Xylakant]

Ownership is a concept enabled and enforced by the society, so it’s always been that the society can enforce restrictions on what owners can do with things they own. Not running an unlicensed hotel from your property is one of those restrictions. If you don’t like it, sell it. Or get a license and comply with regulations.

[bradleyjg]

Real property ownership is a limited bundle of rights. It has been that for centuries before you or I were born. Before deeds even existed in what is today the United States. It’s a model that has a great track record, but if you aren’t a fan of Anglo-American property law (too “socialist” I guess) you are free to leave. I hear there’s some empty land in Antarctica.

[tptacek]

This is a lot of words for a question that seems like it has a simple answer. Whatever the difference is between being an "Airbnb superhost" and maintaining a license to operate a bed and breakfast out of your property, that's the "sketchiness" quotient we're talking about.

[mrgordon]

In many cases you cannot get a license to operate a bed and breakfast out of your property because they issue very few licenses and require various things like serving breakfast which most hosts don't do.

That doesn't make vacation rentals inherently sketchy. It just means that technology has enabled a different solution for the problem then was possible before and now cities will work out to what degree they will embrace it versus trying to regulate it out of existence. Don't get me wrong, I think certain aspects need to be strictly regulated but requiring tons of red tape to rent your apartment out once a year while you go abroad is not the long term solution and is a waste of usable space.

I think in the future people will laugh at how byzantine the laws were to rent out an apartment. Especially in these cities where the hotels are filled up and now people will just leave their apartments empty instead of accommodating people.

[tptacek]

Then, there you go, that's part of the sketchiness of Airbnb: a public policy decision was made to limit the number of short-term rental places (hotels, b-n-b's, etc), and part of what Airbnb is doing is simply overriding that by overwhelming the enforcement capabilities of cities.

[dorchadas]

Exactly. And it's definitely contributing to the housing crises in some cities. People would rather buy apartments/houses and put them on AirBnB, instead of renting them out to the people who work and need to live in the city. I know it's definitely part of the issue in Ireland, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case elsewhere as well.

[JamesBarney]

Is there any data on this? I just can't imagine the market is that large, except in the smallest of town with the largest of tourist attractions.

I mean most large cities have hundreds of thousands to millions of people. I just can't imagine Airbnb would even be 1% of available properties.

[sorokod]

I'm curious why a superhost renting a bunch of properties is "sketchy" while a corporate hotel brand with many properties is to be trusted.

Not sure that "sketchy" is the adjective I'd use. The thing is that a city is not a petri dish for competing business to squeeze as much nutrients from the environment as possible. First and foremost it's a place for humans to live and thrive. That "Residents can only rent out their property for a maximum of 90 nights a year when they are not living there" is an attempt to keep them this way.

[tylermenezes]

As a guest, it's sketchy because the property is usually not-well-cared-for and they've often pissed off the neighbors because they can't deal with nuisance guests.

[mrgordon]

This is a gross generalization. I've stayed at many properties where the person was truly into hospitality and created a much better experience than I would get staying in someone's spare bedroom that they've never rented out before. People who host regularly often tend to leave things stocked in the house that come in handy, have maps of their favorite local restaurants and attractions, etc. whereas a small time host simply hasn't had time (or often inclination) to do those things.

Professional hosts also often have much better systems for key handoff, people you can call if something goes wrong, etc.

[tptacek]

This isn't responsive to his point. Nobody is saying you're a nuisance guest, or that you haven't met hosts who are concerned about nuisance guests. They're saying that nuisance guests are a thing that happens, which seems self-evidently true.

[mrgordon]

Actually I responded directly to the claim that the professional properties are "usually not-well-cared-for" which was an unsubstantiated claim that is clearly way too broad of a generalization.

As far as nuisance guests, I've said elsewhere in the thread that I think the cities should not hesitate to give out large fines for recurring noise violations from one address. Party houses and frats also make a lot of noise even though they have nothing to do with vacation rentals. Banning Airbnb is a less direct solution to that problem than simply passing and enforcing noise regulations. People will just rent on Craigslist and make as much noise as they want if you don't.

[tptacek]

Almost nobody lives anywhere near a frat house.

Craigslist existed (and was probably more important!) long before Airbnb, and the nuisance tenant phenomenon seems to track Airbnb's popularity, not Craigslist. So that's not a very persuasive argument.

[bradleyjg]

I’m seeing you say is that you, the “host”, and Airbnb are quite happy with the way you’ve been able to split the benefits of pushing externalities onto others.

Such honor among thieves is perhaps surprising but in the end rather beside the point.

[intended]

I’d say you’ve lost the fight when you are comparing share housing, with a fully incorporated hotel chain

At that point I’d just force the owner of the shared housing to comply with hotel laws for that country, modified for whatever infrastructural differences there may be.

[darpa_escapee]

Most hotels/motels of that size have clearly marked exits, fire sprinkler systems and are built to code. I've stayed in Airbnbs where twelve people are in an apartment meant for maybe half of that or less.

I had one host, who managed/owned several properties, run an extension cord right along the rim of a bathtub so it could reach one of those dish-style space heaters they stuck in the corner of the bathroom. Neither the cord placement, the non-GFCI outlet it was plugged into, nor the type of space heater were suited for the wet, humid environment of the bathroom.

To me, that's sketchy.

[mrgordon]

Sounds like you should have reported that rental instead of taking it out on all vacation rentals. I can send you pictures of very sketchy hotels that I've stayed in where the bathroom was literally unusable. I still don't want to ban hotels. I give the hotel a scathing review, sometimes complain to them directly, and then I move on.

[darpa_escapee]

> Sounds like you should have reported that rental instead of taking it out on all vacation rentals.

Care to show me what you interpreted as me 'taking it out on all vacation rentals?'

> I still don't want to ban hotels. I give the hotel a scathing review, sometimes complain to them directly, and then I move on.

Cool? I understand that you think that I want to ban vacation rentals, but perhaps you should reread my post before responding with assumptions and non-sequiturs.

Airbnbs are generally unregulated and hosts, more often than not, try to hide their business from landlords, neighbors and their local government.

[kayoone]

I was in Budapest recently and had a very good experience with the host, but was already a bit perplexed that i was in contact with 3 different people over the course of the stay. In the end i realised that the host owns 25 properties in the city centre and probably has a dozen assistants to take care of stuff. It's a full blown tourism business and a problem for the local community at that point.

[bamboozled]

I once lived in Amsterdam and during summer, my neighbourhood was overrun with loud Airbnb tourists coming and going at all hours of the night. As a resident it was an impossible situation for 2-3 months each year. I ended up leaving over it, it was affecting my ability to to my job. I learned (the hard way) why regulations and building codes exist.

[cornholio]

I don't want to minimize your plight, sleeping above a commercial street can be a nightmare. And it's a bugger when your quiet neighborhood suddenly transforms into Tourist Ground Zero.

But cities do need to grow and expand. Quiet backstreets turn into busy boulevards. They have done so for millennia. The economic opportunities such transformation brings for the city far outstrip the cost of new sound insulating windows - not to mention that, for owners, those are more than covered by the appreciation of the property.

That's why I prefer a system where tourists and hosts pay for the creative destruction they do to residential areas, and put that revenue to good use for everybody else.

[tptacek]

Cities have a process for growing and transforming neighborhoods from sleepy residential areas to "tourist ground zero", and that process does not involve waiting for Airbnb to decide which areas to do that to.

[stingraycharles]

In Amsterdam it’s a broader issue, and excessive tourism is a big complaint by pretty much anyone native to Amsterdam. The city has recently put a halt to any further expansion of tourist shops / hotels / etc downtown, and on a national level we’re trying to get tourists to visit other parts of The Netherlands instead. This, in order to keep the authentic nature of the city, and ensure the city still caters to locals as well.

These kind of rules is something all businesses need to adhere to, and I see no reason why Airbnb should be an exception.

[cornholio]

So auction the tourist lodging right like taxi medallions, to hotels and home bnbs alike. The move you describe will likely enrich the hotels that already exist downtown without any benefit to the city.

[stingraycharles]

Sure, those kind of things are a possibility. The point I was making is that Airbnb needs to play by the same rules as everyone.

[qwerty456127]

How is that a problem?

[jabgrabdthrow]

I would guess it’s a zoning issue, it’s an issue to the extent communities have a right to do zoning at all

[raverbashing]

It's probably a management company, the host might be the owner or just a worker of that company

[mrgordon]

Sounds like it created a lot of jobs in the local community. How is that a problem exactly? You would prefer if they didn't hire assistants?

[rdlecler1]

When you eat up the marginal supply of housing it can greatly increase the cost for everyone vs adding a couple dozen low wage jobs for which they’ll also have trouble affording to pay rent themselves. Tourists are not paying taxes to the city, their needs should come second to the citizens that live there.

[gwright]

I don't think it is quite accurate to say that tourists are not paying taxes.

Tourists patronize all sorts of businesses (lodging, transportation, entertainment, food, retail) and those businesses are paying taxes. The revenue from tourists is part of that business equation. Of course there are also specific taxes paid by tourists (airport fees, port fees, hotel room taxes, rental car taxes) as well as regular transactional taxes paid by everyone (sales/service/vat).

[mrgordon]

The marginal supply of housing argument is often a bit ridiculous. Many cities will give their best real estate to hotels and create entire neighborhoods where locals can basically not find housing. Meanwhile some Airbnbs interspersed through the city is the thing driving up housing cost. Just start converting hotels into apartments and you've solved the problem.

You say "tourists are not paying taxes to the city" which is certainly wrong for San Francisco and for most other cities I've travelled to as well. In San Francisco, there is a 14% occupancy tax and it is taken by Airbnb automatically during booking as they do in hundreds of cities. Compare this to Craigslist where I used to rent and nobody ever mentioned paying tax once.

Finally, many of these cities literally have tourism as their number one industry. Its a bit dangerous to start saying that the people who fund your city are second class citizens since they only pay occupancy taxes and not income taxes. In fact many of the areas against Airbnb like Miami Beach have bent over so far backwards for tourists that all they care about are the hotels now.

[rdlecler1]

Taxes in SF are about $3,300 per capita ($2.7b). Hotel taxes bring in $300m revenue, basically what it costs the city for it’s homeless budget. Also tourists are not voters they have no long term interest in the city, cities should be prioritizing around the residents not tourists.

[jimrandomh]

No, converting hotels into apartments doesn't solve the problem. The total amount of spaced used by Airbnb and hotels combined is too small compared to the need for housing; the only thing that solves the problem is removing the height limits, and letting people put up taller buildings.

[ddebernardy]

Rents in Budapest increased ~50% or so in the past couple of years.