[blankobj]

Ignoring this author for breaking the house rules and thinking he is in the right. The reality is Airbnb's are slowly being regulated away due to both the poor behavior of guests and bad hosts that have allowed guests to remain unchecked. All it takes is one bad stay for your reputation with your neighbors to be ruined. I am on good terms with mine, but realize that, if I hosted a stay that brought too many guests or had a party, I'd lose that good faith instantly.

It takes one bad guest for your neighbors to be against you.

I have exterior cameras (3, recording all exterior entry points) - and noise detection devices. I quickly check the cameras at check-in and then once or twice during each day of stay. Goal is to make sure the number of people matches the reserved guest count and no parties are occurring. I don't allow guests to bring any outside visitors. I have a very strict limit on 6 people max. My house rules can't be any more clear on this - and I've still encountered a few guests that have broken the rules. They risked their stay being terminated without refund.

I charge $725/night for 6 guests - I haven't had any complaints about the cameras. 60+ reviews, 5.0 stars, been doing this for a little over a year. I am super upfront about cameras in the house rules and house manual. If I did not have the cameras, and some of the rule violations I've had, I'm not sure I'd be able to keep hosting (my county requires a special exception). It's tough out there for Airbnb hosts to be good neighbors.

Also, fun fact, Airbnb does NOT protect you from damage causes by pets.

[billytetrud]

Your paranoia about what bad guests can do doesn't excuse the landlord in the article for being a petty douche. Bringing a friend over who has a pet is not a reasonable thing to prohibit, nor is complaining about his daughter coming "a night early". These are the behaviors of a creepy asshole, not a human being.

[blankobj]

It's not paranoia. Illegal parties and large gatherings are a huge problem with Airbnb's. Keep in mind - this article is from the guest perspective, we don't have the hosts perspective. But we have an author who admits to being busted for breaking the rules? Personally, yes, I'd "let it slide" and would not have even broughht it up with the guest. I agree it sounds petty on the host if the author is factual. But my comment is mainly to explain why I have exterior cameras - it's a sad reality that, to be a responsible host, and a good neighbor, I have to have them.

[billytetrud]

> we have an author who admits to being busted for breaking the rules?

No. If you think the author "admitted" breaking the rules, then we don't agree on how to be a reasonable person while renting someone your property. I don't think anything was in "let it slide" territory. It was in "give benefit of the doubt" territory. It seems pretty clear to me that if what the article said is true, then the author did not in fact break any rules, as others have said to you.

[blankobj]

I don't think that, the author states it. Their words - "busted". A reasonable person would not bring a dog to a property where it was already established that dogs are not welcome. What about "no pets" says you can bring a dog, but just for a small amount of time? It's a built-in rule to Airbnb - hosts choose between allowing pets or not. Guests are shown the rules before booking. A reasonable person would message the host first to ask for permission. I don't bring my dog over to a friends house without first asking for permission. You certainly can bring your dog, but you might not be welcome again.

[billytetrud]

> A reasonable person would not bring a dog to a property where it was already established that dogs are not welcome.

I disagree both that the author "brought a dog to the property" and that a reasonable person wouldn't invite a guest with a dog for a few hours.

> What about "no pets" says you can bring a dog, but just for a small amount of time?

Human reasonableness. Just like like listing says a place can house a specific number of people, it doesn't mean you can't invite more than that number temporarily. The people/animals staying for the night is completely different than guests. That's why.

[blankobj]

> it doesn't mean you can't invite more than that number temporarily

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion here :) My own rules explicitly state that I do not allow visitors onto my property (exceptions for service professionals). I also send a reminder to guests within the 48 hour cancellation window on the "no additional guests / no visitors" rule. Insurance doesn't cover them (neither Airbnb nor my STR policy). I have no issues keeping my place booked, and 99% of the guests follow the rules.

[standardUser]

Part of the appeal of staying in an AirBnB is to have more flexibility and independence than staying in hotel. But as hosts become more surveillant, at a certain point the roles are reversed and hotels once again become the better place for enhanced privacy and autonomy.

[blankobj]

It's a sad reality. I agree with you though. As an Airbnb host though, it really does take one bad guest to change the dynamics of hosting.

[oakfr]

I can relate, as a neighbor frustrated by rogue airbnb guests next door. That being said, as an airbnb customer, I could not imagine a split second renting a place with cameras checking on me. I haven't seen any so far. I may be too 2019, though.

[herodotus]

I am missing something: which house rules did the author break?

[alistairSH]

Dog on porch. Some people consider that a breach of the rules. Personally, I wouldn't think it was - the dog didn't enter the house and was only there temporarily. No different than a neighbor walking the dog up for a chat, or a cat/bear/deer/squirrel entering the property.

[jahlove]

Why should the landlord believe the renter's claim that the dog stayed on the porch 100% of the time, when he just admitted to lying about the dog being on the property?

> Then he started going on about there being a poop on his property

Really irks me how the author dismisses the landlord's complaint about the dog shitting on his property in this sentence. The landlord has a no pets policy, why should he have to clean up after your friends dog?

[alistairSH]

Why assume it was the renter's/friend's dog and not some random loose animal? Also, to many people "at the house" means "in the house" - certainly, that's how I interpret it. I wouldn't think twice about a friend stopping by with a dog that remained outside.

The last Airbnb I rented had a "mystery pooper" - gigantic dog poops in the yard every morning. Turns out a neighbor's hound had the run of the area and liked to poop there. I only know it because I heard it outside one night and got the exterior light flipped on just in time. I sure wasn't picking them up - not my dog, not mine to clean up.

[blankobj]

Different perspectives, I guess. I'm on 5+ acres, if a guest brought a pet to my property (not just inside the home) - I'd be annoyed about it because it's clear I do not allow pets (service animals being the exception).

[elmalto]

Op is probably talking about the additional guest (daughter) a night early and the dog on the property. IMO calling this breaking the rules is a bit of a stretch?

[scarecrowbob]

" It's tough out there for Airbnb hosts to be good neighbors."

It's possible that it might be a priori impossible.

[ksm1717]

You speak about walking a tightrope with your neighbors and needing a special exception and yet blame for any souring of that relationship falls on guests that you invite to your property.

[blankobj]

I had to provide letters of support from my neighbors to the county. I have several house rules - mostly on not exceeding the number of guests in the reservation, providing the names of the guests, acknowledging no visitors, and no loud noise at night. So yes, I'd blame the guest if they brought an excessive number of people to my property, were loud, obnoxious, and otherwise annoyed my neighbors.

[ksm1717]

Couldn’t you just not rent out your property

[blankobj]

I don't have to rent it out, but it is a second/vacation home for me. It's highly profitable and it stays booked. So yeah, I'd prefer to keep renting it (and earning money on it) - the rules/protections I've put in place are to let me keep doing that. My track record so far has kept me on the good side of both my neighbors and guests.

[scarecrowbob]

Good on you, I guess.

There are a ton of properties where I live doing short term rentals.

It prevents folks who want to live here full time from buying and it drives up longer-term rental rates.

I guess you got yours so good for you.

A lot of us have no sympathy when yall have problems, though.

[blankobj]

Well yeah, my neighbors appreciated I restored the house that was otherwise not in good condition. It sat empty for years. It was originally designed as a vacation/second home - and was never a primary residence or fully owner occupied home. It's in the mountain on over 5 acres. I'm not fully dismissing your concerns - but reality is, vacation homes are a thing. And they were a thing before Airbnb came around. Yes, I took a risk on renovating a dilapidated property. I worked within the framework the county has for allowing STRs. And I'll protect that investment by putting in restrictions and protections by not letting a bad guest ruin it for me.