
Judge rejects Airbnb bid to halt San Francisco ordinance - JumpCrisscross
http://www.reuters.com/article/airbnb-sanfrancisco-ruling-idUSL1N1D923N?em_pos=small&ref=headline&nl_art=16
======
brandur
Although (in typical San Francisco fashion) this implementation seems likely
to be expensive and only moderately successful in the long run, is anyone else
cautiously optimistic in the direction that many large cities are heading with
respect to AirBnB use?

I for one have always enjoyed using the service, but am thoroughly convinced
that allowing the rental of entire suites is having a considerable impact on
local housing availability.

This is going on in San Francisco, but I don't think to quite the same extent
as what was happening in Berlin. I made a trip there a year and a half back
where I stayed at about five different AirBnB units over a three week period.
It was quite obvious that every one of them without exception was
"professional" in that they were reserved for use by AirBnB 100% percent of
the year and oftentimes had paid clean up crews who were _not_ the owner. I
did speak to one owner about it, and he said that he was now running this unit
along with four others full time on AirBnB. In a world without this option,
it's hard to believe that these wouldn't have been normal rental stock.

Recently the city passed Zweckentfremdungsverbot [1] to help counteract the
effect. Nowadays AirBnB is still allowed, but only for single rooms in shared
units. This strikes me as exactly the right balance.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/01/berlin-
au...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/01/berlin-authorities-
taking-stand-against-airbnb-rental-boom)

~~~
djsumdog
In Seattle there are problems with building managers not renewing leases
because, even with high/low seasons, they can make more money renting the same
rooms as AirBNBs.

AirBNB is a great idea if you're renting out your space (and I've stayed at
several like that; either where they're in the house with you or one guy in
The Netherlands who just stayed with his girlfriend on the weekends he rented
his place out). But of course, just like eBay, you'll get a mix of people just
selling their stuff and people who make a business out of it; writing their
own fulfilment and drop shipping software against the eBay APIs.

I really like this post referring to Uber/AirBNB/et. al. as the "bullshit
sharing economy":

[http://grist.org/politics/the-sharing-economy-is-bullsht-
her...](http://grist.org/politics/the-sharing-economy-is-bullsht-heres-how-we-
can-take-it-back/)

~~~
briandear
So what if a lease isn't renewed. The tenant doesn't have a 'right' to a
lease. If property managers don't want to renew leases because of AirBnB fine
-- soon there'll be an oversupply of AirBnB and the market will reach
equilibrium. However since places like San Fran put artificial constraints on
supply through tight regulation, then the market can't reach equilibrium
because of a government-created market distortion.

As a thought experiment, pretend that every home in San Fran was an AirBnB.
What would happen? The demand would drop and landlords would then begin
leasing their places out to where the AirBnB demand and the leasing demand was
at equilibrium -- assuming San Fran allows new housing supplies to enter the
market.

Why doesn't San Fran allow massive high rise apartments like in China or
Korea? Because the NIMBYs want to protect their own property values. All of
these regulations are anti-market and thus promote inefficiencies.

If we accept that there is a housing problem in San Fran, the solution isn't
to tightly restrict the existing supply but to increase the supply. As it is
now it's like two junkies negotiating over a plastic spoon.

~~~
Spooky23
> Why doesn't San Fran allow massive high rise apartments like in China or
> Korea?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquak...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake)

Capitalism doesn't require SFO to transform into Hong Kong. You can move
anywhere. I live in a mid-size city where my housing costs are approximately
the same as a San Francisco bathroom.

Personally, I despise the Bay Area fetishism because I'm 3000 miles away and
my livlihood will be impacted significantly when an earthquake destroys
hundreds of billions of property and those mortgages get vaporized.

~~~
kspaans

        when an earthquake destroys hundreds of billions of property and those mortgages get vaporized.
    

A mortgage is house + land ("real property"), so an earthquake won't
necessarily wipe out the value of the underlying asset. And, these days, due
to the scarcity of land in the SFBA and high demand, the land under most homes
could be worth more than the homes themselves! That said, however, if the
quake were bad enough and infrastructure were ruined, that could also kill the
demand and hence the land values.

------
DannyBee
While I think AirBnB deliberately skirts regulations, this is a bad ruling.
Literally the same argument applies to ISPs. IE under this logic, you could
say that ISPs are not forced to regulate the content in their networks, but
they can't charge monthly subscriber fees to those breaking the law. The
problem, of course, is that doing that requires regulating and monitoring the
subscribers (as AirBnB will have to) contrary to the claim in the ruling[1]

I expect either this will be overturned on appeal, or it will provide a path
for media companies to bend ISPs and others to their will, as they've tried to
for years

[1] "It creates no obligation on plaintiffs' part to monitor, edit, withdraw
or block the content supplied by hosts"

~~~
oconnore
Your example is different, because the isp in question would need to verify
the absence of violations. AirBnb just needs to check the presence of a
registration, much like a bar checks ids for <21.

~~~
DannyBee
You can easily make them the same : The media companies put together lists of
people they claim violate the law, isps must check for them and not charge
subscriber fees. (any argument about who is on the list is a due process one,
unrelated to this)

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
That's not the same at all.

Private companies creating a list of banned persons is different,
substantially, from ordinances requiring a license.

The very basis of negative versus positive approval, for instance.

~~~
DannyBee
Sure they are, because i believe you've missed the point by trying to think
too simply.

The ordinance only requires AirBNB not charge service fees are people who are
unlicensed.

Imagine, instead, LA requires licensing of people who download torrents (much
like they are allowed to require that people register illegal weapons, etc,
and then charge folks for it). Then they say "ISP's can do whatever they want,
but they can't charge subscriber fees to people who download torrents who have
not registered. Doing so is a misdemeanor".

Like I said, you can literally change the words "hosts who have not registered
to rent their home" to "people who have not registered to do X", where X is
pretty much whatever you want.

(For the curious, here's what you have to do: [http://sf-planning.org/office-
short-term-rental-registry-faq...](http://sf-planning.org/office-short-term-
rental-registry-faqs))

The actual ordinance text:

(e) Criminal Penalties. Any Owner or Business Entity who rents a Residential
Unit for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of this Chapter 41 A, or any
Hosting Platform that provides a Booking Service for a Residential Unit to be
used for Tourist or Transient Use in violation of the Hosting Platform's
obligations under this Chapter 41A, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any
person convicted of a misdemeanor hereunder shall be punishable by a fine of
not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period of not
more than six months, or by both. Each Residential Unit rented for Tourist or
Transient Use shall constitute a separate offense.

~~~
manarth

      Imagine, instead, LA requires licensing of people who download torrents
    
      You can literally change the words *"hosts who have not registered to rent their home"* to *"people who have not registered to do X"*
    

Which is the point: SF has passed laws that _require_ licensing. Those laws
are more appropriate for some things than others.

Requiring a license for renting out a property for tourist or transient use is
very different to requiring a license for torrenting. Could LA pass a law
requiring a license for torrenting? Could such a law withstand appeal?

------
staticautomatic
I've been in front of Donato before and he's tough, but he's very smart and
fair. I approve of the ruling. I think refusing to grant the injunction but
leaving the door open for further proceedings was the right move. I'm not sure
he had any other good options anyway as a legal matter. AirBnB can always try
to appeal his decision.

------
bobbytherobot
Uber makes you fill out an application to be a driver which requires proof of
insurance and drivers license.

Thumbtack checks plumbers and electricians are properly licensed before
listing.

------
untilHellbanned
The air is going out in the airbed. Seriously I know this audience will
rationalize it (like they did with Hilary) but getting punched in world-
leading cities like NYC and SF is only going to make adoption harder
elsewhere. If I had any skin in the game with Airbnb I would be looking for
the exit. I sincerely don't think its going to end well. It may take five
years but the trajectory is troubling.

------
intrasight
They'd have a strong argument if their postings were like CraigsList apartment
and room postings. But that's not the case - they participate directly in the
financial transaction

~~~
chii
would it have been different if airbnb split itself up into two entities, one
collecting the money, whilst the other one is an online classifieds?

~~~
intrasight
"follow the money" as they say

------
adwordsjedi
Does Homeaway (public company) have to worry about these ordinances as well?

------
necessity
Considering they operate virtually, can't they just move elsewhere and ignore
the decision?

~~~
civilian
Can't tell if you're making a joke? But this isn't about AirBnb office space,
this is about whether airbnb can rent out units in SF.

~~~
jaclaz
>this is about whether airbnb can rent out units in SF.

To be picky, it is about whether AirBNB can take a percentage out of the
revenue that people renting illegally their own house/units in SF by
publishing the offer on Airbnb are trying to make. The actual "provider" is
the home owner, airbnb is just the "agent". Basically some SF owners fail to
comply with local Law, but airbnb is not exactly free like - say - CraigList,
they take a percentage on the deals, and as such they are co-responsible.

~~~
civilian
I know, I was just using shorthand explanation. Go back to your code review ;)

------
briandear
Why is any regulation needed? Why can't the free market just be allowed to
work? For such a 'liberal' city -- San Franciscoans certainly love their
intrusive, big government.

It's like laws against prostitution or marijuana -- pointless nanny-stating.
Private property rights ought to mean something.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
Where do you draw the line? Do you think all zoning laws are pointless nanny-
stating?

Should someone be allowed to turn their home into a restaurant? A gas station?
A concert venue? Should someone be allowed to turn a vacant residential lot
into a landfill?

When you buy a home, some of the due diligence you do is to review local
zoning. For example, the value of the home might be partially due to it being
on a quiet street with ample parking. If your neighbor turns their home into a
24-hour pharmacy, that decision has a huge impact on you.

Zoning laws seem a reasonable way to balance long-term stability and
predictability with the free market. If someone prefers the energy and
convenience of a mixed commercial/residential zone, cool. If someone else
prefers the peace and community of a residential-only neighborhood, that
should be an option too.

Operating a B&B out of your private home is not the same as opening a gas
station, but it is a commercial enterprise with some of the negative effects.

~~~
sol_remmy
"Should someone be allowed to turn their home into a restaurant? A gas
station? A concert venue? Should someone be allowed to turn a vacant
residential lot into a landfill?"

If you are looking to restrict the rights of property owners, the free market
way to it is with a HOA - an agreement owners living within the neighborhood
voluntarily enter into.

Also, don't knock mixed-use zoning. I wish I had a few coffee shops in my
suburb.

~~~
mikeryan
_If you are looking to restrict the rights of property owners, the free market
way to it is with a HOA - an agreement owners living within the neighborhood
voluntarily enter into._

What? An HOA is created by developers at the time of development not
retroactively applied on a neighborhood.

Regardless of that if an HOA was voluntary then it has no teeth when parcels
are bought and sold. If the HOA passes along with the deed then you've just
created a small neighborhood zoning board which is indistinguishable from a
small town government and it's not a free market.

