
Window into Airbnb’s hidden impact on SF - jamesjyu
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/item/airbnb-san-francisco-30110.php
======
conanbatt
What I dislike the most about Airbnb's whole controversial business model, is
how the true innovation they did was bypassing laws.

As property listing sites go, Airbnb did not produce any true innovation. And
although they clearly must have done some things really well to generate so
many people using their service(a.k.a. probably taking them out of
craigslist), the really true 'innovation' they did was getting away from
abiding regulation.

Now that they are big, they are going to cooperate as much as possible to
build regulatory walls so that another Airbnb wouldnt be able to show up and
contest those rates.

I have the same feeling from Uber/Lyft. The traditional taxi service is
terrible for drivers, and they present true benefits to them: but only because
they found a way to bypass the law by paying with the apps instead of giving
money to the driver. (If I made a site on my own, and picked up people from
the street and the gave me money in hand, i would be breaking the law).

Now that they are big enough, they can also influence the rules enough to make
it harder for future competition.

These strategies can only work when the companies get big enough to influence
the law making, or when they have such a strong market dominance(or monopoly)
that they can now afford to abide by the rules (or to make them).

So, in terms of Airbnb , the only innovative thing they did was finding a law
loophole. Woohoo.

~~~
larrys
"The traditional taxi service is terrible for drivers"

The traditional taxi service, if bad for drivers, is simply because there are
enough drivers that will work and be treated like that to make it terrible for
the group as a whole.

This happens in any employment situation where supply exceeds demand.

Because there is a low barrier to entry to be a driver as well as lack of
other opportunities for drivers the people in charge get leverage.

Likewise "superstar" developers are treated like royalty and well paid in this
industry. If all the sudden there were 4 times the superstar developers vying
for jobs (assuming demand stays fixed and a superstar is a superstar) all that
would go out the window and wages and benefits would almost certainly drop.

I'm a pretty good photographer but decided many years ago that since
photography had a low barrier to entry, and only a few made it to the top,
wages were decreased by competition to make it a non attractive career.

~~~
conanbatt
Supply and demand is not the only actor at play in employment. Otherwise, you
wouldnt need minimum wage, or laws of any kind to protect employees (or
businesses) from the other side.

And also, in the particular taxi-driving business, the problem is not
supply/demand of drivers, its of city permits to be a taxi driver. Drivers
working for Uber/Lyft do not take the same abuse as taxi drivers.

The taxi business is a racket, made by people that took that business, got an
advantage in that time, and could make laws to their own benefit. Uber found a
loophole in those laws, and got to be a winning player in that market. And
now, they are going to be one of the actors in redefining the new set of laws
regarding this,

~~~
argonaut
The effects of the minimum wage and the effects of city permits are precisely
supply and demand effects (specifically, a minimum wage is a price floor in
the labor market, and city permits constrain supply).

------
philipn
I'm glad there's beginning to be some discussion on AirBnB's impact on the
housing stock in SF.

I really like AirBnB when I'm traveling or when I want a nice getaway, but
it's been incredible to see how how many units around me here in SF are full-
time AirBnB rentals. Walking down my block alone, I'd estimate that 30% of the
units here are full-time on AirBnB. Each afternoon, I begin to see the
tourists and travelers roll in with suitcases, and I've noticed an increasing
number of coded lock-boxes outside of many of the houses near me

Whether or not you support rent control is an entirely different issue, but I
feel like AirBnB, as it presently operates, is incompatible with the system.
In the days of yore, friends of mine would have rooms open up in their
apartments and would rent them out to fellow tenants (or subtenants). Now,
many folks I know are converting their open rooms (against SF law) to AirBnBs,
as the tenants can make a killing off of them.

There's always been bad actors in the SF rental market -- many people would
sublease rooms directly to tenants for far above the rate they were paying to
the landlord. I think AirBnB just makes it a bit more appealing.

~~~
_delirium
Do apartment/condo buildings in SF not have some kind of tenants' or owners'
association or management, with whom you agreed in a contract to some rules on
how you can use your unit? I don't think you could get away with doing it that
openly in Copenhagen even if there were no laws involved. If you're running
your unit as basically a hotel, odds are that it's going to annoy at least one
neighbor, who'll point out that your lease (if rented) or condo-purchase
agreement (if owned) doesn't allow you to do that.

~~~
philipn
SF is a bit different than other communities in that most apartment buildings
are really just these large, zany old victorians. Few have tenant associations
or real management. My apartment, for instance, is a 4-address building, with
each address subdivided into 4-5 sub-units. The building is owned and managed
by someone who grew up in the building. I've lived in SF for 7 years, and
never lived anywhere that's like a conventional apartment complex.

------
untog
The overall implication here seems to be that the majority (just about) are
using AirBnb in the way that AirBnb says they do. But there is a minority that
are using it heavily for commercial enterprises, and there's a potential that
AirBnb could be tripped up by them, legally.

The easiest thing to do would be to enforce stricter rules to push the
commercial entities out of the AirBnb system... but those are also probably
the people who make AirBnb the most money.

~~~
dougmccune
This isn't technically true. AirBnb likes to claim their hosts operate within
the limits of the local laws. Even if you're not doing a full-time hotel, if
you're a renter yourself you're almost certainly at least breaking the terms
of your lease, and local SF law already makes renting a unit out for < 30 days
illegal. AirBnB's make believe universe is about room sharing and couch
surfing (all of which would be much more legal). But as much as they talk up
the "sharing" aspect, >60% of the rentals shown in this article are for entire
units, none of which is legal under current law.

You can still defend the practice by saying you don't agree with the law. But
AirBnB can't claim they expect their hosts to all abide by local laws when in
this case it's clear that a majority of their hosts are not.

~~~
nickonline
Are short term stays illegal in SF? So if I was to stay there for 3 weeks I'd
need to be in a hotel?

That seems crazy.

~~~
lmm
Hotels have an impact on their surroundings. If you're operating a hotel it
needs to be licensed as such. That seems reasonable to me.

------
drakaal
I am an AirBnB Host. In Phoenix. I run close to a full time furnished
Apartment Rental business.

I like AirBnB for that.

However, I have seen in SF places that are closer to hostel's and are far from
safe or sanitary. Short Term Furnished Rental Properties feel like they should
be legal, but 12 people squeezed in to a two bedroom apartment shouldn't be.

There may be need for some disruption, but that should be balanced with public
health and safety.

------
kenko
It's really a shame the author doesn't credit Tom Slee, who's done a lot of
really great digging into Airbnb's numbers and their claims.

------
csense
"From a policy perspective, the real issue is whether there are a lot of units
that have been removed from the housing market because of short-term
rentals...It looks like that’s not a big number yet, but that’s what we need
regulation to control so it doesn’t become big."

As someone who's never lived in SF (and in fact my somewhat depressed area's
just beginning to recover from a ton of vacancies left by the mortgage
crisis), it's amazing to me that the local government seems to be
contemplating restricting supply and demand, and stifling economic activity
like this.

------
return0
What's surprising is how smoothly airbnb has invaded cities. There are
relatively very little complaints or damage done, even as neighborhoods are
being transformed.

------
rch
Airbnb could get ahead of regulations brewing in some places by asking hosts
to declare that they are offering rooms in their primary residence, even if
they won't be present during the stay. Property managers and other businesses
operating through the site should probably be asked to declare themselves as
well.

------
maxcan
Even if a large number of hosts were running full time hotels, which they
clearly are not, what is so horrible about that? Do the "progressives" in S.F.
believe that this should be a city that only people who can afford $400/night
hotel rooms should be able to visit? Our city's hotel market is almost as
screwed up as our residential market.

~~~
objclxt
A large number of _listings_ are full time hotels. One host who has twenty
rooms on AirBnB is clearly going to have more listings than one host rented
out their spare bedroom.

And if you can't see why this is a problem, maybe you should go take a look at
the Wikipedia list of hotel fires in the US[1], and pay particular attention
to just how many of those fires were caused by either failing to follow the
fire codes or could have been prevented had decent fire code regulations been
in place at the time.

[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hotel_fires_in_the_U...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hotel_fires_in_the_United_States#Pathfinder_Hotel)

------
ryandrake
Airbnb disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged people
should be allowed to provide lodging services and the rest of us ought to be
content with being passive consumers.

Ride sharing services disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain,
privileged people should be allowed to provide driving services and the rest
of us ought to be content with being passive consumers.

Open-source software disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain,
privileged people should be allowed publish software and the rest of us ought
to be content with being passive consumers.

3D printers disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged
people should be allowed to produce physical goods and the rest of us ought to
be content with being passive consumers.

Peer-to-peer lending disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain,
privileged people should be allowed provide loans and the rest of us ought to
be content with being passive consumers.

The Internet disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged
people should be allowed to publish all kinds of media and the rest of us
ought to be content with being passive consumers.

~~~
untog
_Airbnb disrupted the old-school mentality that only certain, privileged
people should be allowed to provide lodging service_

Haha, what? In what world are people providing lodging services the 1%? I can
picture it now - Wall Street bankers getting bored, so they buy up inner city
hotels to feel alive in the cut and thrust, high margin business of providing
lodging to tourists. Sounds like a dream.

~~~
icebraining
How did you go from "privileged" to "the 1%"?

