I'm fine with abolishing almost all those regulations - they are a huge barrier to entry, and they serve very little public good. However, hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes, yet the tenants charge full fair to rent out their rooms.
Right now, AirBNB and Uber are basically trying to avoid all regulations by pretending to be just middlemen, but that argument is transparently bullshit.
The intermediary argument is over-used, but I doubt AirBnB is trying to fight hotel on the cost aspect: most of the time, they tend to be similarly priced. They don’t really recommend price at all. My impression was more that hotels (like taxis) abuse the market by strangling the offer, and forcing people to upgrade when they don’t care about luxury.
The company was started to help political operative (the most amenable form of interns) to find a dry place to nap during conferences: that sounds like a specific, unaddressed need rather than a tax evasion scheme.
> highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes,
Actually, the handful of people operating ‘hotel-like’ plans (short-term flat-share, really) that you refer too are always doing it from recently build, not rent controlled, purchased flats, for all sort of reasons; they all explicitly mention that operating anything significant from a rent-controlled flat will get you out in the street faster than you can list your flat.
The classic case is this ‘let’s limit the number of license for safety reasons’: if you want high-grade manure, that is top-shelf bullshit. I went to San Francisco once, and I never felt so much in danger than in that cab: no seat belts, speed limits were for the wuss that he was honking at through-out, he gave multi-tasking an Olympic status; even looking at the (packed) road was too much for him. To the point we felt the need to call the company, if anything to make sure whomever would surely die in there soon would have proper insurance. Let’s say we were told in no uncertain terms that we were alive, therefore our livelihood was not supposed to be our concern. Same for rats in hotels: I don't mind an accident, but I expect action, not denial. I don’t understand how limiting the market is going to have a positive impact on service when the human touch is… lacking.
I chose AirBnB because they had interesting features, as in, creative business model that make they offer relevant to XXIst century dweller: personal contact, restaurant recommendations from our host that make sense, a Wifi router that I can physically access when it needs rebooting, free access to kitchen that won’t charge me a day’s worth of wage to toast two slices of bread at night, significant rebate when staying more than a couple of days.
> hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not
As you point out: they are intermediaries, and I’m positive they wouldn’t care charging extra tax. I would put them on a list, and that list could be artificially limited, making them possible victim of a lobbying effort by hotel chains who want to keep a stronghold on a market, rather than admit it has evolved and adapt -- so I understand their reservations. But passing taxes is generally a business-neutral act, so I doubt they care that much. Once again: look and compare, they are not trying to be cheaper than hotels.
- There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB. While I am against rent control (it's a terrible system that creates a few winners and fucks over most people who cannot get such a flat) it's obvious that this is an abuse of the system
- Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes.
I think safety regulations are mostly overkill, and I'd get rid of most of them in a heartbeat, but while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid.
> There's been several reports of SF landlords kicking out tenants from rent controlled apartments to lease out rooms on AirBnB.
That’s the opposite scenario of the one describe initially.
> Until recently, AirBnB fought tooth and nail against paying hotel taxes.
> I think safety regulations
You appear to be conflating taxes (that do nothing for the end user, if increase budget pressure on safety and service) and safety -- and ignoring the fact that what is generally actually enforced are quotas. There is no significant taxes on taxis for instance: it's in every case I’ve heard about a self-enforced tacit price for recommending someone for a licence once you quit; the actual tax exist, but is generally negligible.
> while those regulations exist, you cannot simply outcompete other players that are forced to follow regulations you avoid.
Actually, if your service include a reporting tool, the HUGE and unquestionably largest addition of both AirBnB and Uber, but before them eBay, you end up having to follow far stricter practice that include service, and that, unlike regulations, can adapt.
Price control, quota, safety regulation, user reports… if you confuse those, you end up presenting a false dichotomy between two ways of organising a service.
Right now, AirBNB and Uber are basically trying to avoid all regulations by pretending to be just middlemen, but that argument is transparently bullshit.