
Gaming AirBnB in San Francisco courtesy of Rent Control - DanBlake
http://doubledbl.tumblr.com/post/32179239260/gaming-airbnb-in-san-francisco-courtesy-of-rent-control
======
ChuckMcM
My grandfather once told me that sometimes the only way to change something
was to break it. He was talking about civil rights laws (he was a US Attorney
in Memphis) and explaining to me that even though it was "obvious" that the
laws that were on the books didn't make sense, people who liked them that way
could talk all day and all night about how some day they were going have
everything they needed to change them and somehow they never had everything.
It was a strategy of 'agreeing' to change so that nothing would change. People
grew tired of that, and they started willfully, and with forethought, breaking
the law. It forced the issue, it forced the _conversation_ , and things can be
changed in a courtroom whether or not the people making the laws want them to
change.

That really changed the way I looked at civil disobedience. I was young, Dr.
Martin Luther King's assassination was something I still remembered as a news
event. Strangely when I read about AirBnB and Uber and their "reckless
disregard for the law" I think about my Grandfather sometimes. Would I rather
live in a world where it was illegal to rent out your room to someone who
needs a place to stay, or is that just between you and your temporary
roommate?

I don't doubt for a minute that these companies are pushing and perhaps
crossing the line into illegality. I think that because they do that we are
going to be able to finally have a conversation about whether or not the
public good is served by these laws, and make some changes.

~~~
angryasian
human rights violations and deregulating the hotel industry by lowering
standards are on two entirely different levels.

~~~
chii
when the industry has somehow captured the regulators (like the taxi
industry), this sort of civil disobedience is warrented!

~~~
geebee
I agree that issues around regulatory capture could reach the point where
civil disobedience becomes a kind of civil rights issue.

That said, I suspect that you and I have deeply differing views on laws and
regulations around how property can be developed and used. I live in what was
designated as a "single family" residential area in San Francisco. It is a
little expensive, and many people are starting to convert the garages into
(probably illegal) in-laws. Paving over the front lawn to make a parking spot
for the new tenant is also a common occurrence. Not surprisingly, families
with children are having trouble competing on price with people who 1) don't
have the burden of children, and 2) vastly increase their income by having
tenants in what is now essentially a downstairs flat. I do think it is
reasonable for neighborhoods to seek regulations against this kind of
conversion - that doesn't mean I necessarily support it in all forms, but I
don't necessarily see it as a vile law that should simply be disregarded as an
act of civil disobedience.

I suspect that airbnb is running afoul of laws that limit short-term rentals
because neighborhoods want to remain "residential", that is, they don't want
to become a neighborhood of vacationers. This issue comes up most in
neighborhoods that are attractive to vacationers but still have a large local
population (the left bank of paris, an arts district in santa fe, etc). It
typically isn't an issue in a country club in palm springs (in fact, some of
these communities have a rule _against_ long term residents!)

In short, I agree with you that cartels and regulatory capture can get to the
point where civil disobedience is warranted, but I'm immediately skeptical of
arguments that regulations designed to limit short term rentals fall under
this category.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I expect you will find strong support for this position:

"In short, I agree with you that cartels and regulatory capture can get to the
point where civil disobedience is warranted, but I don't agree that laws
designed to limit short term rentals fall under this category."

That companies like AirBnb get us talking about them and re-evaluating the
current legality is a Good Thing. As a person who bought a house when I had no
kids and I and my wife were bring in two engineering salaries I recognized
that folks with kids already were at a disadvantage, especially if one of the
parents was at home full time.

A number of economists have argued that rent control hurts new families by
unbalancing the market in favor of tenants thus reducing the supply of new
rentals.

------
trafnar
San Francisco seems like a great place to be a tenant and a horrible place to
be a landlord. The San Francisco Tenants Union (<http://www.sftu.org/>)
publishes a Tenants Handbook that is very fascinating. You'll be surprised how
many rights tenants have and how few landlords have.

I can't help but wonder if there would be more housing supply and therefore
lower rents if the city was more friendly towards landlords.

(I'm a renter in San Francisco)

~~~
timr
_I can't help but wonder if there would be more housing supply and therefore
lower rents if the city was more friendly towards landlords."_

I don't lose any sleep over it. San Francisco is a postage stamp of a city.
It's not as if there are vast tracts of persistently unbuilt land, or
apartments sitting vacant for months (indeed, there are usually bidding wars
and half-hour showings of new rentals). And new construction (since it isn't
covered by rent control), tends to cost more per square foot than the older
stuff. All evidence suggests that rent control _caps_ prices in the city.

You can argue that without rent control, landlords would be free to expel the
fabled rent-controlled "freeloaders" who have been living in Pac Heights
apartments since 1953. Okay. So rent on those units goes up to market rate,
the supply of market-rate housing goes up by a few units, and an equal number
of tenants are now homeless, competing for market-rate housing. Not a recipe
for lower rents.

Another argument is that rent control reduces the economic incentives for
landlords to build new units. That's fine, except again, new construction
isn't covered by rent control laws. So it's actually in a landlord's
_interest_ to rebuild. And it happens -- right now, there are a number of
projects underway all over the city.

I don't think rent control has much to do with the rents here. The city is 47
miles square, and is the second most densely populated city in the US.
Meanwhile, 3/4 of the land area is plastered with low-density bungalows and
low-rise apartment buildings -- and that's never going to change. San
Francisco is zoned like a beachside village. It's the source of the city's
charm, and the reason that it will never have the high-density housing that
might actually lower rents. Rent control is probably incidental.

~~~
rayiner
> Meanwhile, 3/4 of the land area is plastered with low-density bungalows and
> low-rise apartment buildings -- and that's never going to change. San
> Francisco is zoned like a beachside village.

True. Shockingly retarded, but true.

------
rootedbox
This plan won't work.. 1 issue...The only person left in the the unit when the
rental agreement expires is a subtenant who has not been approved by the
landlord.. Which is a legal reason to evict. Also you can not pay rent while
being evicted but you'll still owe that rent(plus interest, legal fee's, and
allowed early termination fees). Plus because of your stated goal is to 'game'
a system; and how you are doing things you are actually perpetrating this
little thing called 'fraud'..

Also.. Not saying you are giving 'legal' advice.. does not free you from any
legal liabilities. It's fairly equivalent to a truck with a bunch of rocks in
the back, and having a sign saying "not responsible for windshield damage"..
because the truck DOES have a legal responsibility for windshield damage they
are only trying to scare people from suing them.

P.S. My worry if I was Air BnB is if that the attorney general eventually sees
there business as fraudulent because they essentially enable so many leasers
to do something which there lease specifically does not allow them to do.

~~~
DanBlake
1: All leases in SF automatically convert into month-to-month leases upon
termination (in rent controlled units). Hence why it doesnt matter if your
long term tenant wont sign a new lease, they dont need to. The crux of rent
control.

2: Subtenants have the full power of a normal tenant in that they assume the
lease from the original tenant. Since its obvious the landlord is complicit in
AirBnB activitys by continuing use, that constitutes approval.

3: Not paying rent while being evicted- This is false. For instance, in a
ellis act eviction you must continue to pay rent for the duration else be
liable for getting sued.

4: Legal fees - Only if the lease specifies this, most specify one way for the
landlord or not at all.

5: Gaming a system is not akin to fraud.

6: That analogy makes very little sense. Please apply it to a WebMD post,
where they say "WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or
treatment." - Its very well established disclaimers are valid

7: I think its a great business but needs to be amended to protect both
landlords, tenants and would-be-renters. Currently it has some baked in risk.

8: A great related thing to google about this is "evicting roommates" as its
of course the crux of the issue with subtenants and master tenants. You will
find that subtenants inherit full protection in most cases.

* Disclaimer - This post is a opinion not to be construed as fact and not to be taken as legal advice for I am not a lawyer.

:)

~~~
rootedbox
1: I understand rent control, and I understand the auto month-to-month. Rent
control, and eviction are 2 separate things. And under SF eviction law if the
only subtenant in a spot is not approved by the land lord then that subtenant
can be evicted; Independent of rent.

2: Subtenants do not assume the lease of the original tenant. A lease is not a
license, and can not be transfered in that manor. However subtenants are
offered the full power of rent control, and a master tenant can not raise
rent.

3: we agree? you must pay rent while being evicted or else you will owe the
back rent upon eviction.

4: If your lease specifies then your landlord will recoup whatever legal fees
they wish. If the lease doesn't specify then under California law your
landlord would be able to get "reasonable" fees. Either way your going to pay
something.

5: I think your blog post shows that you are participating int the 5 rules
that make up fraud.

(1) a false statement of a material fact (2) knowledge on the part of the
defendant that the statement is untrue (3) intent on the part of the defendant
to deceive the alleged victim (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim
on the statement (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

6: WebMD is not giving medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.. You should
read there articles more closely.

7: I agree on both counts.

8: Evicting roommates is different that evicting a single tenant; as in
California they have master tenants.

------
infinitivium
Good on you. AirBnB should not be allowed to succeed with a business model
that supplements people's income in an absurdly high rent market.

~~~
DanBlake
Didnt even get into the issue of what happens if you already have a rent
controlled apartment that you use airbnb to make a profit from. Theres a
entire gamut of issues around airbnb that have yet to be explored and frankly
I dont see how they will continue to be able to operate.

Right now its on the outskirts, since they are faciliating vs doing it
themself. They have some ToS which says "You confirm you have a BnB permit"
but of course no verification happens

~~~
Maxious
Sounds like Government-as-a-Platform would be useful here. SF rolls out an API
to access BnB permits of the kind you would need to rent out an apartment.
Except since they claim AirBnB is illegal, it would be a blank text file ;)

------
tylermenezes
tl;dr: old business is unhappy about new business models disrupting their
income. Instead of adapting, tries to scare people with legislation and
provisions in lease agreements.

~~~
DanBlake
Just so we are clear- The point of the post is to inform AirBnB hosts that
their guest could possibly stay forever. Would you not want to know about
that? Nothing to do with pro-landlord or otherwise.

~~~
ricardobeat
That's not how you sound in the post at all.

~~~
josegonzalez
That's exactly how it sounds.

------
cshesse
I was under the impression that in the event your tenant does a sublease when
the lease forbids such a sublease, that the subtenant can be evicted at any
point with 3 days notice. Is this not the case?

