[tpeng]

The issue is not between AirBNB and its customers; its customers can evaluate the risks of renting on AirBNB, and factor that into their rental price, as well as insure for adverse outcomes.

The real issue is that AirBNB also imposes these risks on communities (i.e., AirBNB's customers' neighbors) by exposing them to, in the worst case, criminal elements, but even in a normal case, temporary renters who lack incentive to follow social norms or respect communal property.

This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates. Such a solution would most likely be a combination of technical solutions to minimize bad outcomes and perhaps a tax on AirBNB, the proceeds of which could compensate communities for the externality imposed by AirBNB.

[tetrep]

>AirBNB also imposes these risks on communities...

The person renting to AirBNB is the one imposing the risks. If communities are being put at risk it is by the willful actions of their own members.

>...AirBNB needs to work with regulators...

Why involve more parties than needed? How do communities currently deal with "bad apples?"

If we assume the community is functionally equipped to handle permanent residents who are undesirable, but not temporary ones, why not just apply the same rules to temporary residents? The permanent resident would bear responsibility for their guest(s). This would keep the solution in the same domain as the problem, the community.

[tpeng]

Would you say that oil companies do not impose environmental externalities, but that the guilt solely falls on drivers who consume gasoline? No, the company bears some responsibility.

As to your second question, this is a public policy issue, and there will be a policy response whether AirBNB likes it or not. I think it would be smart for AirBNB to engage in the policy conversation.

[blake8086]

Replace "AirBNB" with "a bulletin board" and try to make the same argument.

[zaidf]

If there was a bulletin board that was primarily used for activities not permitted by local law, the board would likely be taken down. For example, if there is a bulletin board in a dorm that is used to advertise different drug delivery services in town, either the board will be taken down or a new requirement would be placed requiring all postings to be preapproved.

Craigslist is an Internet bulletin board that chose to remove a few categories due to pressure from law enforcement and the community.

[xerophtye]

ok who tried to down vote this guy? he made a really fair point.

[001sky]

9/10 times in ny or sf the sublets are illegal...

the laws are already there on How do communities currently deal with "bad apples?"

Doesn't mean its the "right answer", but ...

[teacup50]

> This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates.

I don't see there being a solution at all; hotels are zoned differently than residential for a reason.

The fact that AirBNB managed to popularize "breaking zoning laws ON THE WEB" doesn't mean that the zoning laws need to change.

[tpeng]

I live in a downtown residential building one block away from a hotel, so that's not always the case. Of course, some communities may choose to prohibit AirBNB altogether.

I think the bigger issue is if the externalities imposed by normal usage are so high that, when properly internalized, AirBNB no longer presents a compelling value proposition in the majority of cases. This is certainly possible.

From AirBNB's perspective, perhaps they just fight the internalization as hard as possible. There are businesses with much costlier externalities, such as energy companies, that are actually subsidized and not taxed. In the AirBNB case, however, they may have a tougher fight as the harm, while lower in aggregate, is also less diffuse.

[nathanvanfleet]

>I think the bigger issue is if the externalities imposed by normal usage are so high that, when properly internalized, AirBNB no longer presents a compelling value proposition in the majority of cases. This is certainly possible.

Sounds a lot like Bitcoin and some other tech stuff. Where the conceit is that is doesn't have all of the externalities, until it's realized that they are functional and useful.

[curiouscats]

Remember AirBnB is global. Even if we said where it is against the current law it should be stopped there are plenty of places without zoning rules or even say prohibitions due to the rules of the building.

It seems to me there are reasonable community reasons to have constraints and there are reasonable reasons to allow owners and travelers to benefit by coming to terms. It seems to me then there are reasonable reasons to figure out sensible guidelines - even where no rules (or practically none) are in place today. Then laws and regulations (and building rules) can be changed to adapt to these new opportunities and risks.

AirBnB (understandably) wants more latitude than I think they should be given. But I also think it is an opportunity for benefit to society and I don't think just saying there are risks we shouldn't adapt is a great idea.

[josephschmoe]

Wouldn't that be the role of insurance? I don't see how bringing the government into this benefits anyone except maybe NIMBYs.

[greenyoda]

Do you think that the neighbors of an Airbnb renter who were constantly woken up by rowdy visitors would be able to benefit from insurance? The loss of quality of life is an intangible thing that's hard to prove or quantify. The recourse they currently have, of complaining to the landlord and getting the Airbnb renter evicted for violating the terms of their lease, is much more effective.