
S.F. cracks down on Airbnb rentals - timr
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-cracks-down-on-Airbnb-rentals-5381237.php
======
chollida1
The money quote from the article:

> "They thought it was OK to rent out on Airbnb because the company didn't
> tell them otherwise. Airbnb should be defending these tenants, or they
> should disclose to every person who rents in San Francisco that (short-term
> rentals are illegal) and tenants are being evicted."

This is interesting. If it is indeed illegal for any renter to use air bnb in
San Francisco, then it seems logical to me that AirBnb should at the very
least make the person renting out a place check a box that very clearly says

1) they own their own place

2) they have checked with their building, if its a condo or shared building,
to ensure that its legal for them to rent out their place.

~~~
gpapilion
The tenant signed a lease, and should be aware of the clauses within it.

Usually leases forbid subletting w/o the landlords approval.

~~~
toufka
At least in this case, it appears to be a law that is being violated, rather
than a clause in a lease. The clause in the lease that is getting people
evicted states, "any illegal activity". So just reading your lease is
insufficient to determine whether or not one could rent a room.

Further, from the article:

"San Francisco bans all residential rentals of less than 30 days unless the
hosts have a conditional use permit - an expensive and cumbersome process that
virtually everyone ignores. The ban applies whether the hosts own or rent,
paying guests visit frequently or once a year, or hosts rent out a room or an
entire dwelling."

So at least in SF - anyone using AirBNB _at all_ is breaking the law,
irrespective of one's lease or ownership status.

~~~
baddox
There still is (at least to me) a difference between specific illegal activity
involving housing laws and simply any illegal activity in the apartment. Can
you get evicted for, say, lying on your taxes from your apartment?

~~~
eloisant
The point here is "using the apartment for an illegal activity".

~~~
baddox
That's what I mean. I've heard of people getting evicted for drug offenses
conducted from the apartment, but not for lying on taxes from the apartment.

~~~
Mindless2112
If it could be proved that you "used the apartment" in lying on your taxes, I
don't see why it wouldn't be legally enforceable.

------
varelse
Assuming they live in a unit subject to The Ellis Act, SF renters benefit from
ludicrous amounts of rent control that cause unending headaches for small-
scale landlords. No sympathy for the renters in question here whatsoever.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Act)

I have personally run into a guy who was subletting his unit out for twice his
monthly rent. This is completely illegal and with good reason. The Ellis Act
was not put in place to help renters make a little extra cash but rather to
protect them from sudden rent increases.

I don't agree with The Ellis Act, in fact I wish it would die because while I
think it was well-intended, it has too many unforeseen negative consequences
and effects. And before you dismiss me as some teabagger conservative, here's
Paul Krugman on the subject of rent control:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-
rent-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-
affair.html)

And AirBnB should know better. No sympathy for them either.

~~~
driverdan
Good to see Krugman actually got something right, even if it was back in 2000.
SF has many ridiculous laws pertaining to real estate and rentals. If they got
rid of rent control and eased their building restrictions they'd have more
housing and more affordable housing.

~~~
dclowd9901
They would certainly have more housing, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be any
more affordable. There is simply more people who want to live there than it
could possibly support, even now. Hell, I'm a developer and I can't even
afford to live there.

~~~
malandrew
It most certainly would be more affordable, but just not immediately. There is
a backlog of 30+ years of market correction to endure before things return to
where they should be. How quickly that correction occurs depends on the
political will of those governing the city.

------
gtirloni
Airbnb doesn't have to know about laws in every places, but if it knows about
such laws (and that they're being actively enforced) in SF and NYC, why allow
people to announce or rent places there in the first place?

There are plenty of services (online streaming) that will tell you "sorry, our
service is not available in your country/city/etc".

The fact Airbnb is allowing this to continue makes me question their ethics.
It's all good they want to change the law but while they haven't had success
in the area, is it worth the bad press and headaches for renters?

~~~
goodcanadian
I have lived in 6 different jurisdictions in three countries. None of them
allowed short term rentals (<30 days) without appropriate zoning, license, et
cetera. This is not about differing laws in differing locales. This is about
ignoring widely applicable law . . . granted law that is widely ignored with
little consequence. AirBnB would not have a business if they made a good faith
effort to comply with the law.

~~~
jseliger
_This is about ignoring widely applicable law_

It seems that technology and culture have moved faster than law (shocking, I
know) and that laws that might have been a good idea in one set of
circumstances aren't anymore.

~~~
geebee
Alternatively, it could be that the law is more relevant than ever. The web
(and airbnb in particular) has made it far more practical to turn the single
family next door to mine into a hotel.

Does this mean that the law that says you can't do this is obsolete, or more
relevant than it has ever been?

In the past, I was unlikely to suddenly discover that I live next to a hotel,
because it was impractical. Now that it can be accomplished by going to a
website, entering an address, and hitting the "create hotel" button, I need
that legal protection.

------
stbtrax
As an SF renter, this makes me happy. I have met too many people personally
that have an extra bed room(or even keep their lease and moved to a lower-rent
city) that they rent out to subsidize their rent. This reduces stock for
actual renters and drives prices up.

~~~
pmorici
How does forcing someone to leave an extra bedroom empty drive up prices?

~~~
bri3d
Short-term tenants generally pay substantially more on a per night basis than
real roommates (long-term tenants). Forcing only long-term tenants would thus
presumably cause rents to move towards what the long-term tenant market can
handle rather than the aggregate nightly rate achievable by accommodating lots
of short-term tenants.

Naturally the reality is vastly more complicated but I believe that's the
basic reasoning behind the "short term rentals drive prices up" line of
thought.

~~~
eloisant
Not only that, but some owners may decide to go full short-term leases to
increase profits. That reduces the market for long term leases, hurting the
housing market.

Now this is definitely the case for cities like Paris, were the law exists but
is not enforced. I don't know of it's true for San Francisco where the price
is already high from high paid locals.

------
numlocked
Many of the comments on sfgate refer to the moral ambiguity of profiting off
of a rent-controlled property -- definitely an interesting wrinkle.

~~~
optimusclimb
I don't see any ambiguity there. Airbnb is just one such abuse.

In talking to people, I've heard countless examples of "master tenants"
charging incoming roommates much higher rent than an "even split" on the rent.
In one extreme, a tenant in a 3 bedroom was living 100% rent free while the
other two tenants covered the entire costs - until they learned of this and
moved out on principle. Tenants moving in as roommates on rent controlled
apartments are apparently even offering cash bribes exceeding $1k for the
privilege of obtaining a spot.

Quite the broken system, imho.

~~~
tpurves
Rent control is a broken system. You have cases of someone with a long rent
controlled $1500 rent on a 3bdr that would go for 3k or 4k market rates. If
they listed a bedroom at $500 on CL they would get ten thousand of applicants.

~~~
malandrew
Furthermore, the quality of the applicants would be far lower than putting it
on for market rate.

Someone who can afford $1500 a month is more likely to be gainfully employed
with greater job security. They are also likely to be able to contribute much
more to a household. Even if someone were to rent out a room for $500, it
behooves them to select from the applicant pool those who are capable of
paying $1500 a month.

Someone paying $500 and capable of $500 is less likely to want to contribute
to common spaces and shared household necessities.

~~~
mrxd
So you're saying that the main disadvantage with rent control is that poor
people can afford the rent?

~~~
malandrew
No, I'm 100% against rent control. What I'm saying that even if I had rent
control and rented a room pro rata based on floor space, I would probably
still choose someone as my roommate that could afford the high rent. I've had
roommates that wouldn't pitch in for things like fixing things in the house
and replacing things that needed replacing, and whose contributions to the
commons were not desirable, like worn out, stained furniture.

If you put a ad on craigslist for a room for $500 today, you would go mad
trying to select for the best roommate. Absent other automatic filters for
roommates, like being able to filter on lifestyle choices/preferences, the
ability to afford a high rent is a poor proxy for other desirable traits, but
better than the alternative of no proxy. It's not like craigslist currently
let's me put an ad out that only allows considerate, easy-going roommates with
no undesirable habits to apply.

~~~
mrxd
You don't personally want to live with the poors -- that's fine, you should
get to live with whomever you want. I just think that using public policy to
create a city-wide filter based on class and income just so you can get to
inbox zero faster when you post a craigslist ad is maybe not right.

~~~
malandrew
You're now just forming an ad hominem by twisting my words. Good for you. I
want to live with people with the wherewithal to contribute equitably to the
commons of the household in which I live. In my current household, I currently
supply most of the common goods (sponges, garbage bags, soap, tools for home
improvement, laundry detergent, toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc.). It
gets pretty old after a while when no one else feels the need to contribute
equitably. If I left things up to my roommates to take care of things, we'd
run out of those basic needs. We are two days away from no toilet paper today
and I'm certain that I'm the only one that thought to take care of that. I'm
the only one in the house that buys the tools we need to fix things (drills,
screwdrivers, pliers, etc.). I would prefer to live with people who, when
inconvenienced by something that inconveniences us all, won't hesitate to pony
up the cash to resolve it.

Personally, I absolutely despise the situation that exists in the city and
thinks everyone is selfish and unwilling to bell the cat by applying the only
solution that makes sense: more housing. The landlords are selfish. Those with
rent control are selfish. The homeowners are selfish. The only people who
aren't selfish are those at the bottom of the food chain getting taken to the
cleaners by the landlords, primary tenants on the lease and the homeowners
blocking all zoning improvements.

I'm not poor, but I'm certainly not rich either. I earn enough to to live in
this city, but certainly can't afford to live comfortably at $1500 a month,
especially when I help out two other family members with money. That being
said, absent other better systems for filtering, putting out a classified ad
at a high rate is still a practical proxy for what you want in a roommate,
even though I'm one of those filtered out by an ad for a $1500 room.

If you were a master tenant with a 3 bedroom for $1500 a month, would you put
a classified ad for each room at $500 each? Answer honestly. I don't think
anyone would (or does since I've never seen such an ad on craigslist and I
know that there is no lack of rooms that should cost that much with ~175,000
rent control units in San Francisco.)

Furthermore, with supply as constrained as it is, nobody will actually read
you ad or care what it is you want in a roommate. At $500, everyone will apply
whether or not they actually meet your criteria. Let's say you want to live
with single, pet-free non-smokers between 30 and 40 and you say so in your ad.
Do you think that hundreds to thousands of people who don't meet that criteria
will refrain from sending you an email for a chance at living in a $500 a
month room?

~~~
mrxd
So you want to remove rent control and exclude hundreds of thousands of people
from living in the city just to make it easier for you to find good roommates.

To borrow the words of master spy Sterling Archer: Do you want anarchist
protestors? Because that's how you get anarchist protestors.

~~~
malandrew
I'm getting to the point where I should stop feeding the troll, but I'll bite
one last time.

No, I would grandfather in everyone in the city with rent control that
currently has it and I would work on a legal mechanism that allows the
grandfathered in right to rent control to be separated from the underlying
property via a mechanism similar to one I've written about before here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7437658](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7437658)

Rent control messes up all housing markets, reducing the quality and quantity
of housing for everyone. We can't undo the mistake that has been made, so the
best we can do is find a way to phase it out in a way that allows the market
to recover from rent control, but preserve the expectations of those that have
come to rely on it. The city needs to increase the supply of housing and the
way rent control currently works acts like a lock on a database. The city
currently has ~175000 locks on n properties that are essentially undevelopable
until you remove all the locks on the property.

I don't want rent control. I, and even most people with rent control, would
actually be far better off in a parallel universe where San Francisco had
never had rent control. Only those who have been in a property for decades
actually benefit. The majority pay far more than they should be for the first
couple of years and then in later years end up paying roughly what they would
have in the parallel universe where rent control had never happened.

Furthermore, if you lifestyle changes and you want to raise a family, you've
fucked yourself out of the market you love because you can't afford anything
in the market by the time you decide you might want something different. When
someone moves into a rent control place, they effectively check out of the
housing market like an ostrich with their head in the sand. Basically, had
they been back in the housing market every few years as their housing needs
and expectations changed, they would have demanded more housing supply in the
city. Rent control permits people to remain blissfully ignorant of the housing
situation until one day something happens that causes them to be out of their
unit such as an Ellis Act eviction. At that point I think to myself "boo hoo",
because if they really wanted to live in a city forever they would have either
bought property back when they first moved here or they would have demanded
increased housing supply long ago so that they would never find themselves in
a housing market they were priced out of. People who argue for rent control
are downright selfish, since they basically get the benefits of a scarce good
without any of the sacrifice (like saving for a down payment) and actively
prevent developments which would reduce the scarcity so that others just like
them that arrive later may also enjoy the benefits of living in a city like
San Francisco.

------
noobiemcfoob
While breaking the law is generally a bad idea and generally one should be
punished for it, I was disappointed that both the article and comments on the
article didn't delve into whether it is a 'good and fair' law in the first
place.

I understand the ambiguity of a tenant virtually subleasing a property, which
is a clause normally either allowed or not allowed in a tenant's lease, but
the blanket ban of renting a room for a short number of days seems like a law
that hotel lobbyists worked hard to get in place.

~~~
mathattack
This isn't black and white.

Many landlords struggle because their tenants are paying below market rents.
This is a particular problem in San Francisco, but also in other cities like
NY.

On the one hand, you can say, "Joe taxi driver can barely afford rent, what's
wrong with him leasing out his room when he's out of town?"

Then look at it from the landlord's point of view. They say, "I can't get a
free market rent, because the law says that I can't evict Joe Taxi Driver. So
I have to settle for less money, then he goes and rents the room out without
paying me a dime."

Then look at Jane NewToTown. Jane says, "I would like to pay market rate for
Joe's place. I can't, but if I want to stay for a few nights I can pay the
renter who gets below market rates, rather than the landlord."

AirBnB isn't the cause of the problem - it exists because there is a problem
that it being arbed.

~~~
sliverstorm
I think what we are saying, essentially, is that Joe Taxi Driver is leveraging
the fact that he cannot be evicted to engage in aggressive rent-seeking
behavior.

~~~
toufka
That would be a reasonable conclusion if time wasn't a factor. Imagine if Joe
Taxi Driver moved in when he could afford rent, and then the price of housing
tripled in two years. Now, Joe's new roommates expect to pay 3x what Joe's old
roommates paid. Additionally, Joe has far less housing security - he cannot
move, even if he get's a 50% increase on his taxi receipts, he still can no
longer afford market-rate rent.

It's unclear if Joe is now 'leveraging the fact that he cannot be evicted'
because the cost of eviction is so high, and his 'aggressive rent-seeking
behavior' is now merely an effort to make a little extra money on the moral
hazard that has been dropped into his lap.

------
mailplane212
I just came back from SF having used Airbnb (studio apartment under the house)
for the duration of my stay. I looked at hotels and hostels, however the night
rate of a hotel was simply too expensive and I hate staying in hostels. Airbnb
was a cheaper alternative that meant I could actually afford to stay in SF,
while there I used the trams, bought coffees in local coffee shops (not
Starbucks), ate in restaurants and visited the Exploratorium, all of which I
assume SF gets a slice of through taxes.

My hosts own their property and as a result I think they should be able to
rent it out on a short term basis if they want to, they should have to pay a
(small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though. I think the law should
be looked at if for those who own their property. Villas in Europe are rented
out legally all the time and it drives lots of tourism and provides
accommodation at much better rates than hotels etc.

If the host rents, then their land lord should be able to evict them if they
sublet and they're not allowed to - they agreed to the contract and they
should stick to it.

~~~
kansface
Airbnb residents are often a nightmare for other tenants in the same building-
they often function as de facto customer support and are forced to put up with
the extra noise. Beyond the legality, this business model is plagued by
extremes.

~~~
malandrew
What's your basis for claiming this is an often occurrence? I have no doubt
that there are nightmare airbnb hosts, but often is hardly warranted. I've
lived as a roommate in a unit where the master tenant rents out on airbnb and
in the dozens of interactions, I can think of at most one case where the
person what an inconvenience to me and I can think of no cases where the
person was an inconvenience to our neighbors.

------
ThePhysicist
The lack of interest on the side of AirBnB is not very surprising: They know
exactly that renting out apartments without a proper license is illegal in
most parts of the world, they just don't care since they can externalize the
risk to the owners of the apartments. Personally, I can understand the
frustration of the people that are on the loosing end of this business model:
Neighbors who find that their building has become a busy hotel complex,
landlords who see the value of their property decline by overuse and noise,
hotels that face an army of competitors which don't pay taxes and don't comply
with existing regulations, and the whole community that faces increasing
rents.

Uber provides a similar example by creating a "parallel market" for taxis and
putting established companies (which comply with existing regulations) under
extreme pressure. In general I'm a big fan of the "free market" model, but
gaining an unfair advantage by just ignoring existing laws and hoping to get
away with it is not a legitimate business practice, I think.

------
brianwawok
A startup built on an illegal business model in it's most popular markets...
sounds like a 20 billion dollar exit.

~~~
paulbaumgart
Enabling a large number of people to more easily do slightly illegal things
can be viewed as an opening offer in a negotiation. If the scale is large
enough that enforcing existing laws is unrealistic, what often happens is that
lawmakers and offenders eventually meet somewhere in the middle.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Why would it be too large to enforce? The drug war certainly isn't.

~~~
smsm42
The drug war is also a spectacular failure and has been a main source of civil
rights abuses until 9/11 response overtook it in that capacity (not that it
doesn't continue to provide a healthy competition still). But yes, expecting
that government wakes up to reason anytime soon may be overly optimistic.

------
sentientmachine
Some people own their own home and still can't use Airbnb because their HOA
(Home Owner Association) made a rule that you can't sublet your house. And if
you are found in abayence of this rule, they can fine you any amount they want
per day, and then if you still don't comply, they can sell your house and kick
you out of it.

So people who have houses with an HOA, they don't technically own their house,
they are just borrowing it from the HOA while paying the taxes, insurance, and
doing all the work for them to keep the house up.

~~~
aidenn0
IANAL, but my understanding is that HOAs in California can't put a lien on
your property for failing to pay fines, only for failing to pay dues.

Furthermore overly punitive fines aren't allowed, and that rule does in fact
have teeth (and is also abused by homeowners to make it more expensive to
collect fines from them).

That means if you pay your dues, but not your fine, the only option the HOA
has to collect is to sue you. Once you pass the maximum for small-claims, that
starts to get really expensive.

Lastly, each homeowner has a common-interest in the HOA, including an equal
vote in board-members. For large HOAs, that becomes fairly moot, but for
smaller ones, it makes a difference.

Now HOAs aren't all sunshine and roses (I prefer to not live in one, primarily
since common-interest property tends to be run quite inefficiently), but it's
not as bad as you make it out to be.

~~~
mikeho1999
Yes, you are correct, on pretty much all of your points.

> IANAL, but my understanding is that HOAs in California can't put a lien on
> your property for failing to pay fines, only for failing to pay dues.

Yes, _however_ , most HOAs _do_ have ways to make it difficult for homeowners
who have become delinquent on fines. One common approach is that the CC&Rs
allow a delinquent homeowner to be placed as "a member NOT in good standing",
which means that the owner will be precluded from using the association
amenities (pool, clubhouse, tennis court, etc.) or even being able to vote for
board members, until the fine is paid off and the "good standing" is restored.

> Furthermore overly punitive fines aren't allowed, and that rule does in fact
> have teeth (and is also abused by homeowners to make it more expensive to
> collect fines from them).

Not only that, but the Davis-Sterling Act (which is the California state laws
that govern common interest developments) as well as most of the local courts
in California are _very_ much sided towards the homeowner and against the
overall community. Much of the Davis-Sterling Act was written and approved at
a time when there was a lot of concern that large community developments would
do things to abuse and harm the individual homeowner, or more specifically,
that the will of the majority (within a CID) would do things to make life as
difficult as possible for those in the minority. Davis-Sterling (and the many
of subsequent court cases that dealt with Davis-Sterling) was basically set up
to help prevent that as much as possible, unfortunately sometimes to the
detriment of well-meaning HOA Boards that are dealing with a delinquent
homeowner that understands these loopholes and uses them to willingly violate
rules, or skirt out of paying fines, etc.

------
shittyanalogy
Good.

Before Airbnb, when craigslist was the go to for short term rentals, they were
not only cheaper but didn't come along with the stigma of ruining the
neighborhood or being treated like a customer instead of a guest. There was
much more of a mutual respect and even a feeling of gratitude on both sides.
Now with Airbnb the whole things wreaks of an (illegal) business transaction
with a flimsy guarantee, neighbors who want to catch you, no such gratitude to
speak of and the costs have doubled.

The whole thing is obnoxious.

~~~
driverdan
Higher prices make a lot of sense. Airbnb provides a level of vetting and
feedback that adds a lot of value and security to both sides. It's easy to
scam someone on craigslist when there's no reputation system.

~~~
shittyanalogy
No it doesn't, I've been scammed as a renter on Airbnb and people have been
scammed as hosts. The increased cost comes from the market transition from
"let's help eachother while we're both on vacation" to "Come stay at my
apartment while I stay at my friends place and make half my rent from you over
the weekend."

------
tomhschmidt
What's the rationale behind having laws like these in place? Is it
protectionism for the hotel industry, or is it more intended to protect
apartment renters from unintended liability issues?

~~~
protomyth
Its about liability and protection of the other people in the building. This
type of law has a long history and a lot of things can go very wrong. This is
a totally different story from Uber and the taxi industry.

~~~
tptacek
I'm not sure it's all that different from Uber and the taxi industry:

* The medallion system gives owners something significant to lose it they become scofflaws, and while we all have horror stories about cab drivers, anyone who's traveled to Asia (or, for that matter, Italy) knows that we have relatively well-behaved drivers, even in the cohorts selected for worst incentives.

* The taxi companies are required to comply with rules that make taxis part of the fabric of transportation for the whole city (for instance, they're usually required to serve every destination within the city). Uber does not need to comply with these rules, and thus threatens not just cab companies but the transportation system as a whole.

~~~
protomyth
I see your point and I guess I went a little far using "totally". In my mind,
the governing factor in the taxi stories is a government created scarcity that
results in some serious monopolies ($100,000 medallions). There is also a
rather larger segment of private transportation other than cabs. The hotel /
motel rules are less about scarcity than a history of really, really bad
things happening.

People's homes are a pretty big issue in when threatened by neighbors that can
destroy everything you own. People get the possibility of a car accident even
if it can be much, much worse.

------
protomyth
So, in this climate of protests and such, I wonder which news outlet will go
with the "just trying to make ends meet due to the high cost of housing due to
all the techies, a couple used Airbnb (one of those techie startups) and got
evicted. now their apartment has been rented by a tech startup employee and
they are homeless" angle. It seems like the perfect storm type story.

~~~
eqdw
These kinds of airbnb-based eviction articles make me laugh. The overwhelming
media narrative here is "all evictions are bad, look at this rich uncaring
landlord forcing this poor hardworking american into homelessness". But the
other narrative is "tech companies are evil". So what happens when an evil
tech company (or, by extension, someone using one like AirBnB) gets evicted?
Are we supposed to hate the landlord for evicting, or love the landlord for
fighting the man.

The articles I read on these subjects always feel schizophrenic

------
Jd
The first time I used AirBnB in SF, the renter invited me to use all the
facilities of his apartment complex, including as much free coffee as I
wanted, the gym, swimming pool, etc.

This struck me as not particularly sustainable. It also struck me as morally
questionable. It was only a matter of time before the chickens eventually came
home to roost...

~~~
malandrew
If that tenant had had a roommate, would that roommate not be consuming the
same facilities? If so, would that be morally questionable?

At the end of the day, that tenant is probably paying homeowner's due
proportional to the square footage of their unit. e.g. someone with 2 rooms is
likely paying twice as much in dues as someone with 1 room.

I know that when I rented the penthouse unit in an apartment building with my
father, we were paying almost 2x as much in building dues as the other units
in the building, since we has 2x the space. Our roommates used the same
facilities we did.

~~~
Jd
The tenant in question had converted his living room and kitchen into multiple
additional "bedrooms" so that he could handle more capacity via AirBnB

In some cases the distinction may be subtle; in this case, not really.

~~~
malandrew
He had people sleeping in the kitchen? Sleeping on the couch makes sense, but
converting the kitchen into a sleeping area certainly sounds like an outlier.

------
lafar6502
How is it legal to take a commision from illegal activity? If people are using
AirBNB for breaking the law, AirBNB should be prosecuted too.

------
davidf18
As a resident in Manhattan where the situation of Airbnb renting facilitating
illegal use of apartments. We pay a lot of money to have security in our
buildings with doormen and other secure systems. We do not want transients in
our buildings.

Airbnb is intentionally setting up a situation where people are breaking the
law and this should not be tolerated. They could easily have a questionnaire
that vets facilities for legal Airbnb use as part of the signup process for
cities such as NYC and SF. Moreover, they should have Airbnb employees verify
that the apartments listed on the Airbnb site are following laws.

The real issue is that a number of reputable firms are funding Airbnb and it
is these firms people should pressure. They are in fact, funding a firm which
knowingly facilitates illegal activities in NYC and SF.

According to Crunchbase these firms include: Y Combinator, Sequoia Capital,
Greylock Partners, SV Angel, Andreessen Horowitz, Jeff Bezos, Ashton Kushner,
and others. Some of these firms such as Sequoia, Greylock, and Andreessen
Horowitz get funds from other organizations or individuals and these funders
of Sequoia, Greylock, and Andreessen Horowitz should withdraw their funds if
their funds are knowingly used to finance illegal activities or a site that
facilitates illegal activities.

These firms are knowing funding a firm which they know is helping people to
break the law and should be held accountable for funding firms which break the
law.

These firms should hire as managers of Airbnb and other firms which they fund
who have _zero tolerance_ for breaking the law or trying to violate the spirit
of the law.

 _I do applaud_ Airbnb's attempts to lower the cost of transient stays in NYC
and SF. But this should be done through a legal mechanism such as building
low-cost hotels in NYC and SF (with partners perhaps) and then listing these
low-cost hotels on their site.

------
slg
I think there is an interesting comparison to be made between Airbnb and past
file sharing companies like Megaupload or Napster. In the ideal situation,
these services can be used completely legally. However, a majority of these
businesses' customers seem to be using the service for illegal means. These
companies profit on the scale of their business, so they have little
motivation to cut down on that illegal activity. The only real difference is
the victim of the "crime" taking place. The victims in the case of file
sharing companies were a powerful and centralized industry. The victims in the
case of Airbnb are its customers. Is the fact that the laws are being broken
by the same people they are meant to protect enough to make Airbnb more viable
long term then the other businesses founded on illegal transactions?

------
greggarious
I don't think this entirely will kill AirBnB.

For example, I used AirBnB when doing an internship. Since it was >30 days, it
was legal. I liked that I was able to read reviews, verify identities, and in
a worst case scenario contact my credit card company's fraud department and
get my money back.

There's a huge demand for medium term sublets in SF. People doing internships,
people who need a place to get some breathing room for a couple months while
they hunt for a more permanent space, that sort of thing.

Is it worth billions? Probably not. But I'd say it plays as useful a role as
say, Craigslist.

------
winstonx
Many posts here express dismay at Airbnb's selective disregard for the law.

Companies often ignore laws when it is expected to be profitable. It's a
simple matter of risk management. And it is a straightforward consequence of
our economic and legal system.

See this 2012 article "Should Companies Obey the Law If Breaking It Is More
Profitable?" [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/should-
companie...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/should-companies-
obey-the-law_b_1650037.html)

~~~
npizzolato
Then we should change the equation. Maybe if we started prosecuting executives
that break the law instead of just fining the companies, we would start having
companies that follow the law.

------
jqm
I never understood the Airbnb business model.

Sure, some regulations seem designed primarily to protect existing interests,
but more often, there are very good reasons for the regulation.

For instance, I believe hotels must maintain a record of visitors car license
plates. And they are often inspected by health departments.

I'm all for innovation, but I don't think we can throw out an entire
regulatory framework that took decades to develop. There is just too much that
can go wrong.

As for 10 or 20 billion dollar valuation for Airbnb? Reality says
"Ridiculous!".

~~~
tptacek
A 10+ figure valuation for something that extracts 80% of the value of a hotel
chain while sustaining 1% of its costs and at the same time handsomely
remunerating the vendors that provide its inventory does not sound at all
crazy to me.

~~~
jqm
Boy I would sure hate to see what crazy sounds like to you then:)

~~~
tptacek
Something where you can't draw a straight line between execution and billions
of dollars in profits?

------
wuliwong
I'd guess that the number of people receiving eviction letters "out of the
blue" is pretty small. I recently had a couple run-ins with my management
company and the last thing they want to do is evict me. They just want me to
stop the offending behavior.

I think the important thing is the agreement between tenant and landlord (or
condo association, etc). From my perspective, if those agreements are specific
about no subletting then I don't see how it even matters if there is a city-
wide ban? There isn't a city-wide ban of smoking in residential buildings in
Atlanta but I am not allowed to smoke in mine. That seems to be analogous.

I believe the fault lies with both AirBnB and the renter. I see people mostly
harping on AirBnB and it does seem they could do more to make the renter think
about the legality of the situation or check a box stating that they have the
legal right to do so. But as a long time renter, I've always been well aware
that in every rental agreement I've signed, it is a violation to sublet at
least with out consent from my landlord.

The idea that there is some connection between morality and abiding by all
laws is silly. There are so many ridiculous laws on the books, it is
laughable. Over here in Atlanta, it is illegal to engage in oral sex. I don't
believe I'm am a bad person for breaking that law as often as humanly
possible. Again, I think that violating a piece of state or city legislation
of which I had nothing to do with enacting is far different from me violating
an agreement which I myself signed.

~~~
avalaunch
I imagine renters are more likely to get eviction letters out of the blue if
they are living in a rent controlled property and their landlord is thus
incentivized to evict and raise the rent.

------
IanDrake
Ah, the never ending chain of well meaning laws that require more questionable
laws, backed up by objectionable laws, with the gaps filled by laws only
Stalin would be proud of.

People visit from out of town and use town resources, so we need to tax them
without taxing the locals...let's create a hotel tax. The locals don't pay it,
so no one cares.

How do we track the hotels to make sure we get our tax money? We'll need a
licensing process. Again no one cares.

Hotels form a lobby and say, hey, we're paying these taxes and getting these
licenses, maybe you should create a few laws to protect us and limit the
licenses so we stay in business. Some people care.

Finally, a neighbor sees my house and my frequent guests (because I have a lot
of friends that visit) and reports me to the Gestapo and says I _might_ be
renting my place out on AirBnb. Without any due process I get fined for
violating a law meant to protect an industry that pays taxes to pay for the
visitors that use city services that I actually live in and pay taxes. Now I
really care, but it's too late.

Violating your lease is wrong, but so is violating due process. I also believe
I have the right as a property owner to rent out my property as long as its
purpose doesn't change.

------
abalashov
I have a fairly libertarian view of local regulations, and, unlike many
commentators on the issue, have little sympathy for NIMBY attitudes from
neighbours. In my opinion, if someone rents out a rented apartment, that
should be subordinated to the subletting clause in their lease, but if someone
owns an apartment, they should be able to rent it out to whomever they please,
at whatever frequency, and charge whatever price they like to do so. They are,
of course, obligated to take responsibility for any disruptions, nuisances,
damage, etc. caused by the guests, as per normal building regulations, but I
don't think the possibility of renting itself should be impaired by any local
regulations. The Airbnb model is simply disruptive, and hotels don't like
that. That's how I see it.

I am especially unsympathetic to the argument that the neighbours have a
"right" not to live "next to a hotel". There's nothing inherently hostile
about a hotel as an application of an apartment, versus any other less
controversial applications of an apartment that result in occasional comings
and goings of strangers, such as parties and social gatherings. If the hotel
causes them specific problems, they have a right to redress those specific
grievances. That's about it.

My view of this is strongly connected to the idea that property rights to real
estate should incorporate the freedom to use the property as you'd like, as
long as it doesn't harm anyone. I don't find much plausibility in the idea
that renting it out in and of itself harms anyone. Many things that Airbnb
renters can do can cause annoyance or harm. So can a drunk friend getting
rowdy at my dinner party. So what? I can't have guests? Oh, I can? What about
guests that stay a few days? Yeah? Why not paying guests then?

~~~
geebee
I've seen a few versions of this comment. You are stating your interest in
converting a single family house into a hotel, and then stating that you see
no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to do this.

I disagree. While I understand that renting out bedrooms on airbnb is a far
more profitable use of a single family house than providing a place for your
kids to sleep, I purchased a house in an area zoned for single family use.
When I purchased, I traded my right to turn my house into a hotel in exchange
for a legally enforced expectation that the neighbors I share a wall with
won't do this either.

------
willemm
I'd be interested to find out where this push of evictions is coming from.
They mentioned a surge of complaints from neighbors of renters, but I think
it's more likely to be the hotel industry pushing back, or perhaps the city
making a point about evading hotel taxes.

~~~
pisarzp
Or just landlord who is looking for a reason to evict someone and get market
rate for the flat.

~~~
cdelsolar
Bingo.

------
d0m
It's a recurrent theme to see somewhat illegal startups becoming massive and
then adjusting for the laws. I.e. youtube, airbnb, rapgenius.

That's one kind of unfair advantage that startups have over bigger
organisations where they can spread and grow quickly even if a bit illegal (or
on the grey line).

I'm just speculating here but I'm wondering if it couldn't be a good indicator
of success for upcoming startups.. I.e. something a tiny big illegal gaining
some adoptions. But then, it's fair to ask, how far are founders willing to go
in the "illegal" side for the success of their startup?

------
rch
One problem in Boulder is that various entities (people, speculators, etc.)
can be more aggressive about investing in affordable property, especially
condos and smaller houses. Which they then operate as distributed, high-margin
hotels. I don't think this is what Airbnb had in mind anyway, and it's
obviously going to cause friction as the range in property costs collapses up
into the high end (which is holding relatively constant).

Boulder is a tough market by design, but anything with this sort of impact is
going to be closely scrutinized and evaluated for long term effects on the
community.

------
bowlofpetunias
On a related note, the city of Amsterdam recently distributed a clear and
friendly leaflet regarding the do's and don'ts of private short-term rentals:
[http://www.iamsterdam.com/holiday%20rental%20guidelines](http://www.iamsterdam.com/holiday%20rental%20guidelines)

Clearly it's a prelude to a crack down, but the rules are clear, reasonable
and communicated well up front.

------
taude
Our condo association is updating the bi-laws for forbid short-term
subletting. I'm sure other owner-occupied places will eventually, too,
especially in many high-priced urban neighborhoods. Who wants to live in an
expensive home they purchased to only have neighbors renting it out for short-
term rentals?

------
scelerat
I guess I'm surprised to learn that any such subletting is illegal in SF.

Even prior to AirBnB it was really common to see offers on Craigslist or
simply through traditional networks of friends and acquaintances, "Sublet my
apartment while I'm traveling for six weeks," or "SFO-NYC apartment swap."

~~~
furyg3
Six weeks would be legitimate in most places, depending on how the city
defines "short term rental". Most cities have such a definition.

Of course, if you are a renter your rental agreement would need to allow for
subletting or you would permission...

~~~
scelerat
Or two weeks, or whatever.

------
mahyarm
I wonder what the rights of a short term renter is in SF. Lets say 30 days or
some other small fixed time that is legal. Can you practically stop paying
rent and live there for the years it takes to get you evicted? Would they have
to pay you the $~40k relocation payments to get you out eventually?

~~~
dragonwriter
> I wonder what the rights of a short term renter is in SF. Lets say 30 days
> or some other small fixed time that is legal.

Except for properly licensed hotels, short-term rentals are illegal in SF.

~~~
mahyarm
The article says over 30 day rentals are legal. It's under 30 day rentals
without a permit that are illegal. But I'm wondering if there is a difference
in treatment vs a person who has been there for a year or more.

~~~
greggarious
I am also interested in this. It could end up being a nightmare scenario.
Someoen signs up for a month, says "You know what, I like it here. I'm not
leaving."

Even if they kept paying rent, they might be an unpleasant person. If they
also stop paying rent it could be even worse.

------
xcntktn
"Airbnb's website tells people to check local laws and their leases. A
specific section on San Francisco explains the prohibition on short-term
rentals and links to various city codes."

So why doesn't AirBnB simply disallow listings from SF? Worried that will
impact their valuation?

------
samstave
How about SF focus on the shanigans of corrupt poiticians, like Leland Ye and
others, and STFU about an actual great service like AirBnB.

If they want to regulate it, make AirBnB carry massive insurance - divide that
cost of insurance across the thousands-of-user-hours per nightly rental.

------
epo
Subletting rental property means you are abusing your landlord's assets,
almost certainly violates the terms of your lease and probably violates their
insurance policies. Eviction is an appropriate and proportionate response.

~~~
YokoZar
The City of San Francisco is using this law to threaten people who do this
with the explicit permission of their landlords. Or who own their own place.

------
Estragon
Is there any risk of legal action from being an airbnb guest in SF?

~~~
ryanmcbride
Probably not since you aren't the one profiting, but if you know that it's
illegal for the host, you probably shouldn't do it just to avoid being a jerk.

------
surana90
Something similar happened in Singapore too last year.

~~~
hatu
Somehow I'm not surprised.

------
crassus
This is rich coming from a city with more dingy rent-by-hour flophouses than
any other I've ever seen

------
jophde
San Franciscan crony capitalism at it's finest.

~~~
balls187
In Seattle, there was a HUGE stink after the City Council passed a law
regulating services like Uber & Lyft. Given that we (Seattle) are always
compared to the Bay Area in terms of innovation (and the stifling thereof),
it's nice to see that at least our two city governments are aligned in their
ineptitude.

~~~
steve-howard
"Regulating" in the same way that choking someone is "regulating" their air.
Still, even though I really liked UberX's service, they deliberately set out
to ignore the law and then cried foul when the city started putting some teeth
to it.

------
jrockway
I read to about here:

 _" Using an apartment for short-term rentals is a crime in San Francisco,"
said Edward Singer, an attorney with Zacks & Freedman who filed the notice
against Katz._

Considering private attorneys don't prosecute crimes, this sounds like a
landlord that wanted to raise the rent and found a good excuse to evict the
current tenant.

