[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.

[Isinlor]

If I don't like it, I can protest it. Also, I don't own any property myself. I'm upset by limiting my opportunity to visit cities cheaply.

[Xylakant]

Sure you can protest. But your post very much sounded like you’re upset that any restrictions are imposed. And that’s just an unrealistic stance. I own my flat and I’m not whining that I can’t do whatever I want with it because it was in those pesky laws and the effin contract that I signed when I bought it. So yeah, I suck it up and deal with it. It’s called being a member of society.

[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.

[Xylakant]

I hear it’s got a great view too, no building blocking the beaches. But you can’t drill for oil on your own property in Antarctica, they’re everywhere taking away your rights.