Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Democrats Government The Courts United States Politics

Cities Struggling To Crack Down On Airbnb Renters (latimes.com) 260

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: A California man has been charged with eight misdemeanors for renting several apartments under his own name, and then subletting them all. "Apartments in Santa Monica that might fetch $3500 a month as ordinary rentals, are worth three or four times that on a daily or weekly basis," reports one newsweekly, and the subletter notes that he only received two years of probation plus a $3,500 fine, "what one of my properties makes in a month." On Wednesday three prominent U.S. Senators "called for a regulatory probe into whether short-term rental websites such as Airbnb are taking housing away from long-term renters and pushing up prices," but the number of Americans planning to use Airbnb this summer has apparently already doubled since last year.

The Hotel and Lodging Association of Alaska is complaining that the state's renters "are not required to follow the same state and federal safety mandates that are required for other hotels and lodges creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers." But it seems like currently the only pushback is coming from local and city officials, like the short-term rental rules that Airbnb is currently fighting in their home city of San Francisco. For example, in Maine, the owner of one of Portland's 425 rentals units is now fighting a city order "demanding that he stop renting out part of his home through Airbnb. "Portland has a limited staff to enforce zoning rules, so it comes down on the most egregious cases, said City Hall spokeswoman Jessica Grondin."

I laughed at the quote from the City Hall spokeswoman. "It's kind of like speeding on the highway. You know it is illegal, you do it anyway, and you get caught."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cities Struggling To Crack Down On Airbnb Renters

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17, 2016 @05:45PM (#52529799)

    When I speed, I'm not forcing people with smaller cars off of the expressway and onto dirt roads, far far away.

    These people are driving up the rents and prices of homes in communities, while not being restricted by the laws that hotels/motels/holidayinns have to follow. So for those who want decent housing at decent pricing, they have to live far away, or in worse areas.. driving the next people to live farther and worse-er.

    • by jmcvetta ( 153563 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @05:57PM (#52529845)

      Get real, dude. Rents in Santa Monica were sky high before Airbnb. Rents there will continue to be outrageous until the city government allows enough housing to be built to meet demand. Restrictive zoning - and the macroeconomic relation between the money value of land versus labor - is the cause of high rents, not short term rentals.

      • Socialists and Liberals have no idea about value in a scarce commodity. They artificially make scarce a commodity (real estate zoning / rent control) in a vain effort to force private people into their own will, only to have it backfire repeatedly. And the excuse for continuing the repeating the failed social experiments is ... "This time, we'll get it right"

        The government should not be creating artificial restrictions for social purposes. It doesn't work, makes things worse, and in the end, screws everyone

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Speeding endangers lives; airbnb renting does not. Therefore, speeding is much worse. Let them do what they want with their property.
      • Speeding endangers lives; airbnb renting does not. Therefore, speeding is much worse. Let them do what they want with their property.

        Well that certainly depends. What if the property they are renting on AirBnB is unsafe? Doesn't have all of the safety accommodations that one might expect in a rented lodging? Hell, you could die in a fire because the place doesn't have smoke detectors or a fire extinguisher. AirBnB is just like Uber: they flout the rules that drive up the cost of the service industry they are competing and act as though they are somehow different than those services themselves. They are not. And certainly the people

    • I'm not sure I understand why Airbnb rents remain so high though. Even if you try to rent out a place for a month it's significantly more than a typical month long rental. Shouldn't competition drive prices down?

    • When I speed, I'm not forcing people with smaller cars off of the expressway and onto dirt roads, far far away.

      These people are driving up the rents and prices of homes in communities, while not being restricted by the laws that hotels/motels/holidayinns have to follow. So for those who want decent housing at decent pricing, they have to live far away, or in worse areas.. driving the next people to live farther and worse-er.

      Prices communicate information. When prices rise, it means that there is a shortage of the commodity being traded with respect to current demand. The rising price causes three very good things to happen, in this order:

      1. Conservation: people find ways to economize on housing costs;
      2. New supply: more housing gets built, unless you're in California where it is illegal to build anything new;
      3. Replacement: Big single-family houses get replaced by condos and then high-rise condos as is typical in an urbanizing

      • Now think about this. It works this way with ANY commodity.

        Except when government central planning (i.e. "rent control") doesn't account for supply/demand from Econ 101

    • These people are driving up the rents and prices of homes in communities

      The rents are driven up by housing shortages. The NIMBYs and BANANAs have stopped nearly all housing construction in most big American cities. In SF, more than 95% of building permits were rejected last year, and most prospective builders didn't even bother to submit a request. So new growth is forced out into the suburban sprawl. Blaming the shortage of urban housing on Airbnb is silly.

  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @05:47PM (#52529803) Journal

    Crank up the fines and forbid people from renting at more than one location.

    Start at $10,000 per violation.

    • $10,000? Assuming you get caught (see quote about limited resources to police zoning violations) that's still not a lot of a deterrent.

      There is a lot of money involved here. Consider that as a property investor you can get triple the return if you let your apartments through Airbnb.

      The other impact is that this drives up rents across the city for "normal" people.

    • Well that would suck... I live in Ventura but work 3-4 days a week in San Francisco. So I have places in both cities (it's cheaper to rent an apartment in SF than to do hotels for 2 to 3 nights a week). I guess I pay a violation because my commute is long enough I choose to stay overnight?

      Rather than renting more than 1 location, make the penalty for illegally subletting a place (which is what many AirBNB places are - a person rents an apartment then starts to rent it out to others for considerably more

  • the usual suspects (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @05:53PM (#52529833)

    On Wednesday three prominent U.S. Senators "called for a regulatory probe into whether short-term rental websites such as Airbnb are taking housing away from long-term renters and pushing up prices," but the number of Americans planning to use Airbnb this summer has apparently already doubled since last year.

    Well, it sure is pushing down prices for hotels. Which is probably why crony capitalists get all pushed out of shape about this. As for housing prices and the housing shortage, AirBnB isn't responsible for that, it's zoning laws, rent control, and the interference of the federal government in the mortgage markets. But, hey, leave it to the usual suspects (Warren, Feinstein) to first wreck people's lives and then blame "big evil corporations" for the mess they created.

    • So airbnb demand is going up, and it lets property owners charge far more than long term renters pay, and you somehow think it isn't responsible at all for the housing prices and shortage problem? Not even a bit? That's totally unconvincing. Zoning laws and rent control are part of it, but clearly they need to be updated to state where airbnb locations can happen. Or better yet, let's allow for reasonable airbnb use. Going out of town for a month and want to rent? Using airbnb to meet new people and rent ou
      • So airbnb demand is going up, and it lets property owners charge far more than long term renters pay,

        Property owners charge more to short term renters than to long term renters because short term renting is riskier.

        and you somehow think it isn't responsible at all for the housing prices and shortage problem? Not even a bit?

        Short term housing and long term housing are indeed in competition for housing units; but based on what do you prefer one to the other? Why is it better to arbitrarily force property owne

  • Isn't this the standard way to do business in America? I mean buy something and resell it for a profit.

  • Be it Uber or AirBNB, the pattern is the same — the old way of doing things is struggling against the technology-enabled new way.

    We lived through this, when automobiles replaced horse-drawn transport, we are witnessing it now...

    creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers

    It is decidedly no less "safe" than the overpriced "real" hotels/motels. And it is only unfair because of the costs of government-regulations, which those "real" establishments have always passed on to their customers.

    With the immediately-available customer ratings offered by the new companies, the government regulators are simply no longer necessary. If "fairness" is a concern, the hotels should be left alone — and unregulated — too.

    • by geoskd ( 321194 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:17PM (#52529905)

      If "fairness" is a concern, the hotels should be left alone — and unregulated — too.

      I'm not normally one to drink the "regulation is bad" coolaid, but in this case, the regulation serves a function that has been deprecated by the new instant availability of information. This is definitely one of those cases where technology has rendered moot the underlying reality that forced the need for regulation in the first place. The only problem is that regulation in the hotel industry lines the pockets of the already established players as well as the town and cities doing the regulating. Just like the cab industry, its time for an overhaul of these regulations and a thorough re-examination of the underlying realities. I find it overwhelmingly likely that its time to give that regulation the axe, and free up hotels and motels to be more cost competitive with airbnb. There will still be a market for hotels, just not nearly such a big one, which seems only fair, as all of the hotels near where I live sit mostly empty most of the time. They can afford that business model because most of their costs come from actually renting the room (aka taxes contingent upon occupancy). This kind of a change will start a culling in the hotel industry that, frankly, its about time we actually got around to. Free up some of that prime real estate in and around hotels, train stations, and major venues for things that provide more social value to the local residents.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        This is definitely one of those cases where technology has rendered moot the underlying reality that forced the need for regulation in the first place.

        I disagree, technology is simply providing a new way for people to evade the laws and recreate the same problems that -- long ago -- caused the laws to be created.

        Now, there is some virtue to "shaking things up", but the underlying issues here are not actually computational at all, they are issues about monetary-incentives, damage and accountability, and various tragedies of the commons.

      • If "fairness" is a concern, the hotels should be left alone â" and unregulated â" too.

        I'm not normally one to drink the "regulation is bad" coolaid

        But you won't let that stop you from doing so - right from the envelope without even diluting it with water first as per the instructions.

        in this case, the regulation serves a function that has been deprecated by the new instant availability of information.

        Oh? How exactly does does the 'new instant availability of information' replace regular

    • by Harlequin80 ( 1671040 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:18PM (#52529911)

      It is materially less safe than the existing hotel market. A simple example is hotels are held to a much higher standard for fire safety. Being held to those higher standards imposes a cost on a business. If you can operate in the grey areas without those costs you have a significant commercial advantage at the risk that a fire may kill / injure people that wouldn't have been killed or hurt if your building had been compliant.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        It is materially less safe than the existing hotel market. A simple example is hotels are held to a much higher standard for fire safety.

        I call bullshit -- that is, if you care about actual outcomes as opposed to bureaucratic box checking. Show me one Airbnb death from fire. One. If you can find one, then we can go on to discuss whether Airbnb's effective per-room-night death rate is higher or lower than the hotel industry's, which in the U.S. alone has thousands of fires and double-digit deaths each year [fema.gov].

        • Impossible to compare AirBNB stats as the information is completely unavailable.

          However there were 1.24 million building fires in the US in 2013. Which claimed the lives of 3240 people. Of those fires 7700 were in high rise buildings. Those high rise fires contributed 27 deaths. That gives you a fatality chance per fire of .35% in a high rise and .26% in all fires. So this is a relatively low difference. This low difference comes about because high rise and high density buildings have stricter fire co

      • by geoskd ( 321194 )

        A simple example is hotels are held to a much higher standard for fire safety.

        No, buildings of that size and occupancy levels are held to that higher standard. It could be an office building, and the building codes have the same requirements given the same envelope of building. A hotel that consists of hundreds of single room free standing structures are not required to have sprinklers, fire block stairway exits, etc... All of those kinds of requirements are specific to the size and layout of the building to ensure escape paths, and fire warning, etc. Small free standing structures s

    • by Harlequin80 ( 1671040 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:20PM (#52529923)

      How would an immediately available customer rating know if the carpets were fire retardant or not? That all the electrical items were tagged and tested regularly? That food handling procedures were up to standard, that kitchens were clean?

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        How would an immediately available customer rating know if the carpets were fire retardant or not?

        If I don't have fire-retarding carpets where I live, I shall not require them, where I choose to stay for a few days.

        That food handling procedures were up to standard

        If anyone gets food-poisoning, they'll mention it in their review of the place — that's all it merits.

        that kitchens were clean?

        Same thing.

        • You know people die from food poisoning right? It's not just a case of getting the shits and puking. This is why you have a food safety board and health inspectors that check restaurants. But I suppose a review after the funeral is ok, right?

          Direct from CDC..... CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

            And this happens despite all the efforts to monitor food supply and food-preparing establishments by the government.

            You now need to demonstrate, that it happens more often in places like AirBNB apartments (the tiny minority of them, that may be offering the "breakfast" part of the BnB).

            But that's all besides the point — people wishing to stay only in th

            • No I don't need to prove that the risk is higher. You need to prove that the risk is the same or lower. You are the one advocating for the change not me.

              People have always always always picked the cheapest option. They pick the cheapest option even though it is demonstrably less in their favour. What's more is people will choose an option that is significantly more expensive even if it only appears cheaper at the first glance.

              Regulations came in to existence to address a problem. That regulation may ha

      • by geoskd ( 321194 )

        How would an immediately available customer rating know if the carpets were fire retardant or not? That all the electrical items were tagged and tested regularly?

        In a free standing apartment, two, or even a four unit building, there simply is not the danger from fire that exists in a large hotel. even in a 5000 square foot house, you are never more than a short sprint from an exit. Hotels on the other hand, you could often be a long hallways from safety, with scores of other people competing with you for limited evacuation routes. When a house burns down, it is pretty rare for there to be an actual fatality from the fire or smoke. Burns and ailments yes, fatalities,

        • There may be a greater potential for death, because you have more people concentrated, but your regulation and fire requirements work to prevent that. For example it doesn't matter how short the sprint is if the only exit is on fire. Lots of people put bars on their home windows that cannot be opened from the inside. This is the sort of thing that wouldn't be allowed in public accommodation.

          I'm not in the US so I'm commenting on my own local regulations. But if you are a B&B for example, you are req

      • by geoskd ( 321194 )

        How would an immediately available customer rating know if the carpets were fire retardant or not?

        It wouldn't. The building inspector would know, and were talking about eliminating hotel taxes and hotel specific regulations, not building codes. Fire safety regulations are not specific to hotels, but are required by the building department in regards to buildings of a certain size and type.

        To elaborate, hotels are not required to have sprinklers because they are hotels, they are required to have them if the building is of a large enough size and meets certain criteria. A building of that size and type wo

        • Your fire regs are different to ours then as there are differences here based on what the building is to be used for and not just its size.

    • Be it Uber or AirBNB, the pattern is the same â" the old way of doing things is struggling against the technology-enabled new way.

      We lived through this, when automobiles replaced horse-drawn transport, we are witnessing it now...

      Horseshit.
       

      creating an unsafe and unfair market for consumers as well as hoteliers

      It is decidedly no less "safe" than the overpriced "real" hotels/motels.

      Horseshit. A real hotel controls it's keys so that only I and the hotel staff have access to my room. Such control is virtually impossible in an AirBNB situation. In addition, a real hotel has a front desk staff and usually some form of security staff keeping an eye on the premises. A random rental from AirBNB does not. And that's on top of the fire safety and other issues raised by other commenters.
       

      With the immediately-available customer ratings offered by the new companies, the government regulators are simply no longer necessary.

      Presuming the ratings are honest - which I do not trust them to be. Customers have no interest in honest ratings, and can be penalized for them if they cast aspersions on the service. The rental agency itself has no incentive to be scrupulously honest because they don't want to piss off too many providers. Etc... etc... Not to mention, few customers will rate (or even have the technical know how to rate) such things as the fire protection system.

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Horseshit.

        This is incorrect.

        Presuming the ratings are honest - which I do not trust them to be.

        You, then, have my permission to stay at the hotels certified by the loving, caring, and benevolent officials of the local government. The government, over which you — a visitor from afar — have no control whatsoever.

        I'll take my chances with AirBNB or someone like them, whose business model is based on the integrity of the ratings (similar to Uber and, to a large extent, Amazon [bloomberg.com]).

        Ah, you'll say, but

        • Horseshit.

          This is incorrect.

          Oh? Then how come you are completely unable to refute a single one of my points? You didn't even try. (You need not answer, because I know the answer - you can't.)

          You, then, have my permission to stay at the hotels certified by the loving, caring, and benevolent officials of the local government. The government, over which you â" a visitor from afar â" have no control whatsoever.

          Nor do I need any control, because it's in the goverment's interest to maintain s

        • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

          Horseshit.

          This is incorrect.

          Not where your posts are concerned.

    • by lucm ( 889690 )

      Yes, the same thing should happen with banks, insurance companies, childcare and hospitals. Let's get the government regulations out of the way and rely on Yelp reviews and Facebook likes. FREE MARKET!

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Let's get the government regulations out of the way

        You got it!

        and rely on Yelp reviews and Facebook likes

        The reviewing and certification agencies will themselves compete with each other. Some people may prefer Yelp, others — Consumer Reports, or Angie's List, or Good Housekeeping, or whoever else decides to enter this market.

        If there is demand for certification, there will be supply. And if there is not, then the rent-seeking bureaucrats should not exist.

        There may still be work to do in insurance an

        • Sounds like a plan. Of course next time you book wirh Airbnb and the "palace with ocean view" turns out to be a shithole and the hosts asks for an extra $200 cash, I'm sure your reviews on Angie's List will help righting that wrong, since bad reviews on Airbnb are bad for business and usually fade in the digital void. You could also put up a Facebook page or post a rant on Craigslist.

          There's been great success stories with deregulation and the free market, such as energy (Enron), investment banking (Lehman

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            Of course next time you book wirh Airbnb and the "palace with ocean view" turns out to be a shithole and the hosts asks for an extra $200 cash

            If this ever actually happened, you'd have included a link... But, hey, it could — and the "real" hotel you booked may also disappoint and overcharge. No obvious differences on this front — except it is easier for you to warn others via Yelp, AirBNB's feedback and similar channels, than trying to complain to a local government official.

            There's been great s

            • by lucm ( 889690 )

              If this ever actually happened, you'd have included a link

              Are you kidding? Just google "airbnb horror stories", even the huffington post has an article about this.

              And there's a website full of those too: airbnbhell.com, it has stories from both points of view (hosts and guests).

              • by mi ( 197448 )

                Are you kidding? Just google "airbnb horror stories", even the huffington post has an article about this.

                Like this [nypost.com] you mean?

                (Do study, how to embed links in your own Slashdot postings.)

      • Yes, the same thing should happen with banks, insurance companies, childcare and hospitals. Let's get the government regulations out of the way and rely on Yelp reviews and Facebook likes. FREE MARKET!

        Because clearly if person ever expresses the opinion that one particular regulation or set of regulations should be repealed, that person is forever committed to arguing that every single one should be repealed. And conversely, if one ever argues that a regulation has positive worth, they are permanently banned from arguing against any other. Analyzing each regulation independently and concluding that (like many other things) some are useful and some aren't (and a few really perverse ones are downright coun

  • economics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by m2943 ( 1140797 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:20PM (#52529927)

    The reason housing prices are high and there is a housing shortage in desirable areas are simple: government keeps pushing up demand for housing in such areas through various housing subsidies (low income rent programs, Section 8, government support of mortgages), while at the same time discouraging the creation of new supply through price controls (rent control, affordable housing unit requirements, special taxes on developers) and regulations (zoning, usage restrictions, etc.).

    I know, dear Elizabeth, you're just a greedy lawyer and a rabble rousing politician, but please, learn some basic economics: you and people like you are responsible for the housing shortage. And restricting the ability of people to rent out their places for short periods, as on AirBnB, will make the housing shortage worse. In fact, the reason AirBnB is likely so popular in the first place is because AirBnB hosts don't have to deal with all the other rental regulation bullshit people like you have created; in a free housing market, AirBnB would be much less attractive, since landlords could get similar income without all the risk associated with an unpredictable succession of short term renters. So, if you restrict AirBnB rentals, people will probably either leave their apartments empty, or they will convert them into expensive luxury condos. See, Elizabeth, you can certainly stop people from engaging in some economic transactions by wielding your big senatorial stick, but you cannot force them to engage in economic transactions against their will.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:26PM (#52529951)

    uber is a fake taxi, avoids taxes, and avoids regulations and requirements designed to protect the public.

    airbnb is a fake hotel, avoids taxes, and avoids regulations and requirements designed to protect the public

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      I am going to start 'Bee-R4u' and deliver beers and spirits to minors. But as I am not a restaurant or any other of the sort of companies that is restricted by age, I should be ok.

      Mmm. I am not selling beer, I am renting out closed cans and bottles. However when they open them, they can not be returned anymore. Closed cans can be returned for a small fee.

      As the sending is so people can look at how these things are fabricated AND I direct my business at minors, I think I should be getting money for the educa

  • Simon says no (Score:2, Interesting)

    The cities and towns who want to regulate this and Uber and the like are doing so not because there is some sort of crisis or need for regulation. By their own admission, they do not have control over it now and yet there are very few reports of problems, which strongly suggests there aren't many issues.

    No, they don't want to solve anything. They're just mad that somebody is doing something without asking permission and paying for licenses and other crap. An awful lot of government is devoted to making p

    • Re:Simon says no (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jittles ( 1613415 ) on Sunday July 17, 2016 @07:42PM (#52530271)

      The cities and towns who want to regulate this and Uber and the like are doing so not because there is some sort of crisis or need for regulation. By their own admission, they do not have control over it now and yet there are very few reports of problems, which strongly suggests there aren't many issues.

      No, they don't want to solve anything. They're just mad that somebody is doing something without asking permission and paying for licenses and other crap. An awful lot of government is devoted to making people ask for permission to do things and making them pay fees to get that permission.

      If people realize they can do things just fine without permits, then all hell will break loose of people doing stuff on their own for free! How can bloated bureaucratic governments survive and justify their own existence if people just DO stuff?

      You're right. There's absolutely no need for permits to do things like electrical wiring. And no reason whatsoever to mandate that property owners have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers on their properties. Nothing has ever gone wrong in the past, all of these rules and regulations just came to be out of thin air because some bureaucrat thought it would be a great way to make money.

      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        You obviously never applied nor got inspected for said licenses. They are just taxes on renovations. I've had 6 permits in the last 2 years, 2 electrical ones, 1 for a repair and 1 for a renovation. The licensing office requires you to have a building permit for the renovation, a building permit for fire sprinkler system, a water permit to connect the backflow preventer for said fire sprinkler system to the pipes, a sewage permit to make sure you don't connect the drain for said fire sprinkler system direct

        • You obviously never applied nor got inspected for said licenses. They are just taxes on renovations. I've had 6 permits in the last 2 years, 2 electrical ones, 1 for a repair and 1 for a renovation. The licensing office requires you to have a building permit for the renovation, a building permit for fire sprinkler system, a water permit to connect the backflow preventer for said fire sprinkler system to the pipes, a sewage permit to make sure you don't connect the drain for said fire sprinkler system directly to the sewage, a fire marshal inspection, an electrical permit for the electric. Each permit is ~$120.

          The inspections are a joke, I did the work all myself which is permitted as the homeowner, half the inspectors asked me why they were there, They never heard of anyone doing a fire sprinkler system so especially the water and sewage inspector were wondering why they were there, then I had to point it out and they said: well, for residential fire sprinkler we can't test the system, you pass. All inspectors spent 5m looking around and say "looks good" on both rough and finish inspections, didn't even have to show the entire renovation. They do require you to submit plans for ~3 months and then hound each inspector for 3 days to show up and the building inspector I've been calling for 3 weeks now.

          You have electrical permits because working with electricity can cause fires and death. You have a sewage permit to make sure that you're not making a change to the line that would cause sewage to spill into the ground. A water permit to make sure that you're not going to cause a water problem for yourself and all your neighbors. A building permit to make sure that you do all of the structural modifications according to code. I've had to get permits to do work before, I know how the process works. When

  • I just have a problem with those people who rent their place 52 weeks a year. IMHO, 2-3 weeks a year is making extra money without causing problems. Renting 52 weeks a year is causing problems in the neighborhood without doing due diligence, paying license fees, and pissing your neighbors off.
  • How is any different than renting out a beach house?

    • by jtara ( 133429 )

      The fuss is that many/most of these rentals are in formally-quiet residential neighborhoods.

      I just moved from a place where the neighbor across the street frequently AirBNBs. One weekend, quiet Japanese tourists. Next weekend, college kids from Arizona whooping it up and getting into fights. And ALWAYS Uber drivers honking, alcohol-serving limo-busses making a bad problem worse, etc. etc. etc.

      This is expected - to some degree, at least - in a beach area, hotel district, etc. (But the hotels, at least, have

  • As someone who rents I dislike the idea of AirBnB pushing up prices. But as someone who travels AirBnB has been the best thing in years. Hotels are fine if you're on your own, but I usually travel with my family. Staying in a slightly run down home is way better than a very nice hotel or holiday home when your kids are going to run around in it. Not to mention seeing into other peoples lives and houses.

    I travelled around the US with my family and our 3 cats. I know some hotels let you have pets, but the lim

  • Now and again one of our neighbors is caught sub-letting his apartment.

    The complaints come from all sides --- because this undermines the security and stability of the entire apartment block. The location is ideal for small children and retirees and rentals are affordable. The sub-lets have been nothing but trouble. The kind that has you dialing 911.

  • So they want to limit the free market to allow only unattractive rentals?

    Face it, there is a need for short term high rent rentals, not for long term low rent ones. People who can't find a long term need to search for areas, where they can find one.

  • by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Monday July 18, 2016 @03:09AM (#52531947)
    There are very very few members of the public who don't like or have a problem with AirBNB. Any government that bans them is clearly doing this on the behest of the hotels and other such businesses. This is a perfect example of government officials working for the rich elites and not for the people who voted them into power and pay the taxes that let these thugs have jobs.

    Why do we continue to put up with law after law after law that is not in our best interests.

    Is AirBNB perfect, nope. But any problems can be regulated to solve any problems for the greater good. For instance if someone had three houses on a quiet street that they AirBNB'd for party houses, then you deal with that issue. But a blanket ban is just anti citizenry which would be an action only take if there was some inducement or incentive for the lawmakers.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...