
San Francisco Legalizes, Regulates Airbnb with 7-4 Vote, Lots of Amendments - enra
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/07/san-francisco-airbnb/
======
geebee
I think the board of supes missed an incredible opportunity here to enforce
code. One problem with many of SF's downstairs "in-law" units, in my opinion,
is that they are almost always built without permits and in violation of
building codes. This can be a big deal - having done a downstairs remodel
recently with proper permits, I know the expense but also the value of
licensed electrical and plumbing work, proper structural engineering, and
firewalls to prevent the inferno that results from faulty wiring from
spreading to the bedroom next door. My take on it is this -the government has
the right to inspect hotel rooms. I'd say if you want to list your home on
airbnb and turn it into a commercial property, you probably should have to
accept that the govt will enforce proper safety, environmental, and structural
regulations like it would for a hotel room, without the same privacy issues
we'd extend to someone's home.

~~~
w4
>I'd say if you want to list your home on airbnb and turn it into a commercial
property, you probably should have to accept that the govt will enforce proper
safety, environmental, and structural regulations like it would for a hotel
room, without the same privacy issues we'd extend to someone's home.

I don't know about California, but in Massachusetts short term rental activity
is explicitly residential, and not commercial, per existing case law. That may
be why they didn't do what you suggest.

~~~
geebee
No idea, but that is a good point. I think that the internet has dramatically
changed the nature of short term rentals. I don't think that regulations have
become irrelevant - in some ways they are more relevant than ever - but they
do need to adapt.

Prior to the internet, it was difficult enough to get word out and so forth
about a spare room that short term rentals could be regulated largely as an
afterthought. Now, they're a multi-billion dollar industry.

There may be a middle ground we need to find, something between "government
out of my private home" and surprise inspections of a hotel. But things like
unpermitted wiring, lead paint, uninspected furnaces, the absence of carbon
monoxide alarms… while these things are actually illegal in residential units,
I think the game really does change when you start to expose potentially
hundreds of people to this over the course of a year through commercial use of
a property.

~~~
apaprocki
The bulk of the criticism from rational people that I hear is due to the "but
they do need to adapt" argument. Flagrantly violating the law just because you
want the law to change is not the proper way to do this. If Airbnb wanted to
form this industry and generate revenue for cities and offer protections for
renters, rentees, and residents in the buildings the units reside in, they
would attempt to change the law through legislature. The fact that they simply
keep raking in profits from users obviously violating the law paints them in a
very negative light to any rational resident of a city where Airbnb is
illegal.

~~~
RHSeeger
Its not completely unreasonable to break the law to protest it when you find
it unreasonable. On the other hand, you need to understand that, in doing so,
you may be fined or do jail time for your actions.

~~~
aestra
That's called civil disobedience. I consider it more legit if it is done by
individuals for social change rather than for profit companies to make money.

------
pyrophane
I live in NYC and think that something like this here would only solve one of
the major problems we have with Airbnb. If it is enforced, the 90-day cap
should be enough to keep apartments from being taken off the market during a
housing crisis so they can be used as full-time hotels. That is really
important, because it is the more affordable apartments that are most
vulnerable to this, since they don't usually have a doorman or a landlord that
is likely to care that much.

The problem it doesn't solve, however, is the fact that hotel guests shouldn't
be staying in apartment buildings unattended by a host anyway. It creates
terrible problems for people who are actually trying to live there, since
Airbnb guests will treat your building like a hotel. I would much prefer that
a host always be required to be present if the rental in question is an
apartment.

~~~
wdewind
There is an extremely simple solution that AirBnB will forever refuse to do:
simply build a function that allows me to search for AirBnBs by address and
file a complaint should I need to do so. As far as I can tell this + feedback
provides a level of regulation that is a pretty decent compromise. I've been
adversely affected by people AirBnBing in my building but I'm not against the
overall premise of it, they just need some kind of system that allows people
who are currently affected but outside of AirBnB to provide feedback.

Of course this would totally shrink their market size over night but...

~~~
psaintla
I think the bigger problem is that it would allow competitors or just people
who are assholes to file unfounded complaints. I don't think much good would
come of such a system.

~~~
wdewind
I think there would certainly be things to iron out but the burden is on them
to provide a system of regulation that works. Currently they aren't.
Regardless I don't think the two problems you mentioned are insurmountable for
a $10B company by any means.

~~~
psaintla
I believe it isn't insurmountable but any possible solution would be
unreasonable. You're asking for a system to be put in place but you have no
ideas regarding implementation. If you think about the problem you'll realize
how ridiculous any solutions would be. The biggest problem is verification of
complaints, how do you do that?

~~~
wdewind
You're proposing that my solution wouldn't work. Maybe, but your opinion is
based on just as little data as mine is, so neither is more valid. I still
think my system would work fine, and this is based on helping work on systems
similar to this in the past, but that's not really the point.

I want to reiterate that while I provided what I think is a relatively easy
and doable approach, the burden is not on people negatively impacted by a
company to come up with solutions. The simple fact is that most metropolitan
areas do not allow short term rentals in residential neighborhoods as a matter
of zoning, not to mention the fact that many leases prohibit subleasing of any
kind. AirBnB allows a ton of illegal activity to happen on its network, and
then claims it has no easy way to enforce the law. That may or may not be
true, but it's like telling a bank that is laundering money that it's not
responsible for fixing the money laundering problem because detecting it is
expensive, and hey, they're just the platform right?

~~~
psaintla
I'm not saying your solution wouldn't work, I'm saying that any implementation
of your solution would be an unreasonable burden. AirBnB is not a real estate
agent and does not act as one, there are no laws against them listing
properties nor should their be.

~~~
wdewind
I don't see how you can say that and not feel the same way about payment
providers. If AirBnB is not on the hook for activity that happens explicitly
and exclusively on their platform I don't see why we should hold banks
accountable for illegal activity that happens on their platforms.

~~~
psaintla
Banks shouldn't be held accountable for illegal activity that occurs on their
platform unless they are complicit in the activity neither should AirBnB. If
the government comes to AirBnB or a Bank with evidence of criminal activity
they should then have act but neither should be in the business of policing on
behalf of the government.

I would agree with AirBnB having to be audited so that the gov't could do the
policing but that's about it.

~~~
wdewind
Well the entire US legal system disagrees with you so I guess this is just
where we part ways.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-
approves...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-
approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html)

~~~
psaintla
For banks... we're discussing short-term real estate rentals.

------
staunch
"Airbnb allowed" should be a feature of rental properties the way "Pets
allowed" is. It will attract people who want to be able to use Airbnb and
repel those who don't want the problems it brings.

~~~
rtpg
that already exists (at least in the inverse). It's called a no-subletting
clause.

~~~
hkmurakami
I don't know the details, but I learned last week when I was in LA that LA
allows "short term vacation rentals" that I believe are distinct from
subletting.

So I believe that these two are _not necessarily_ the same, depending on the
city's legalese.

~~~
apaprocki
For example, NYC has "fixed" the law to be very clear.

"What the Law Says -- Contrary to what many may think, New York laws about
short term rentals are pretty clear, thanks to a new law went into affect in
2011. "Under the New York State multiple dwelling law, a residential multiple
dwelling can only be used for what is termed 'permanent resident purposes,'"
explains attorney Robert Braverman. "What that means under the statute is that
it has to be occupied by the same person or family for 30 or more consecutive
days." So anything less than 30 days, no matter how you swing it, is violating
the law, unless of course, the place is zoned to be a hotel or hostel."[0]

[0]:
[http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/25/an_introduction_to_...](http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2013/03/25/an_introduction_to_new_yorks_short_term_rental_laws.php)

~~~
pbreit
Or unless owner/tenant is present? Or unless price=cost?

------
forrestthewoods
God reading about the San Fran housing market just makes me angry.

Only 376k housing units? WTF! And 172k of them are rent controlled? WTF!

What a clusterfuck.

~~~
tn13
As a new immigrant to US and Bay Area I am totally amused to see that there is
so much vacant land everywhere and yet so little housing. Dont see why
cupertino, MV, Sunnyvale cant have 10 floored housing complexes.

~~~
CalRobert
It's cars, mostly.

Many of California's cities have laws requiring massive, incredibly wasteful
amounts of parking to be built even in supposedly high-density or transit-
oriented communities. In addition, there are rules saying houses have to be
set back a certain distance from the road, which takes a good deal of space.
Finally, most places also require that roads meet a certain (high) "Level Of
Service", meaning lots of cars can move through very quickly. Nevermind the
fact that by building things like this you are forcing them to go much, much
FARTHER. Have you noticed that driving through LA (or San Jose for that
matter) is mostly driving through a sea of parking lots and wide streets? See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service)
for more.

There is also a cultural preference for lots of land; I'm bemused by how many
people mock "McMansions" for having small yards but never spend any time in
their own yards.

This is less true in the bay (and not at all in SF) than other parts of the
state (looking at you LA) but it remains a problem. Also, areas where the
majority of the population are homeowners tend to vote against new housing
construction. This increases the value of their own homes at the cost of
strangling newcomers to the area and making the cost of living exorbitant. Of
course, without new housing those areas will continue to consist primarily of
homeowners, so the cycle continues. Even in supposedly lefty places you see
people oppose construction that would help increase housing supply, presumably
because it's bad for the environment or will damage neighborhood character.
I'm sympathetic to those claims, but making people commute from 40 miles away
(if they're LUCKY it'll be on BART or Caltrain, but probably not) can't be
good for those things either.

I wonder if it's time we reconsidered whether it makes sense for highly
interdependent neighboring communities to be separate cities. Would we have a
more integrated and efficient transportation, housing, and office
infrastructure if the bay from San Mateo up to Mill Valley and east to 680
were the same city? Quite possibly. It would at least mean, to some small
extent, that they couldn't say "we'll take your companies but housing the
plebs is somebody else's problem - only huge single-family homes for us, thank
you!".

~~~
Shivetya
there is also a lot of, we like our town and we don't want others here. Hence
throw up building codes, regulations, and such, to keep housing from being
built. You can use all sorts of PC buzzwords to make it palatable, from
environment to maintaining historic sites. When large scale housing is built
it usually is where people don't want to be.

~~~
muzz
Throwing up obstacles to building housing is often called NIMBY-ism or "PC",
but it is also what owners of homes would be expected to do it they were
maximizing their own economic self-interest

------
LordHumungous
Airbnb is emblematic of the new "disrupt everything and fuck the consequences"
economy. Too bad more landlords don't lay a smackdown on tenants who use their
apartment as a hotel.

~~~
apaprocki
I could see landlords being lax because they might not be present or live in
the building and have no sense of what is going on. In my building in NYC,
renting your condo via Airbnb, VRBO, whatever is a $1,000/day fine.

------
chuckcode
Pretty clear that mostly what SF cares about is the tax revenue. That is the
only part that is centralized and Airbnb has to provide. Everything else is
self reported by the hosts which means that maybe the city will lean on them
if the neighbors or landlords complain. Pretty smart of Airbnb to pay off the
city and avoid responsibility for anything else. This is definitely a scalable
business model if they can get other cities to buy into the same idea.

------
cheepin
Now that it's legal, do you think they will abide by the regulations, or is it
just a symbolic move that will have an intangible effect on the actual
business? It's hard to tell if a company operating largely outside the law
will go inside of it now that it is just an inconvenience to comply instead of
impossible.

~~~
pyrophane
They should be requiring that Airbnb help them enforce it. Airbnb could easily
require you to input a permit number when you create a listing then keep track
of the number of days you are renting without a host present in order to make
sure you don't go over it. They should also be reporting your rental income to
the state for tax purposes.

~~~
jMyles
See, this is the part that truly makes me ill. I don't want the government, at
any level, to outsource its habituation. Regulations are one thing - on the
local level they're usually tolerable - but bureaucratic integration is
another.

~~~
zo1
In the anarcho-capitalist community we call it slave labor. It is a bit of a
stretch to say as much, but it get's clumped under the same umbrella as
conscription. i.e. Government compelling you to do labor (usually for free),
which is just a bit away from "government compelling you to enforce it's
laws/regulation/process/bureaucracy/tax enforcement on it's behalf, at your
own personal business cost". Assuming that's what you mean with bureaucratic
integration? i.e. Government getting businesses to help them enforce their
bureaucracy.

~~~
pdabbadabba
I don't think "a bit of a stretch" quite captures the exaggeration. It is, in
fact, a huge ridiculous stretch that should offend anyone who knows what
slavery actually is. It's not even in the same ballpark as conscription. (I
recognize, though, that you appear not to entirely buy this terminology
yourself, which is admirable. The anarcho-capitalist community could use a few
more people who think critically and take language seriously.)

In cases like this the government does not compel anyone to do anything.
Rather, it permits them to engage in a particular line of business on the
condition that it does so in a way that attempts to re-internalize what would
otherwise be a host of harmful externalities.

------
shouldbeworking
Top comment on the page:

> can there be legislation for airbnb to get a new logo?

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/07/san-francisco-
airbnb/?fb_co...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/07/san-francisco-
airbnb/?fb_comment_id=fbc_773913802650953_773938202648513_773938202648513)

~~~
Sammi
Is that some joke or reference that I'm not getting?

~~~
misterbwong
This has zero relevance to the topic but, yes, there is a reference you're
missing. When AirBnB redesigned their logo, there was an internet uproar
(read: slow news week and some tweets about it) about how ugly the new logo
was/is.

------
MRSallee
"San Francisco legalizes Airbnb"

Uh, was it illegal before?

~~~
adamnemecek
Not illegal but not legal.

~~~
MRSallee
Like ham sandwiches?

unregulated ≠ illegal

~~~
aikah
Well,obviously if a laboratory creates a new drug,and that drug is not
approved by the FDA,that drug is illegal.

The problem with Airbnb business,is that Airbnb soclializes the risk.Airbnb
doesnt risk anything,hosts do.Of course it is in the interest of Airbnb to
make sure its users risk the minimum.But Airbnb as a plateform is legal.Airbnb
can argue it's just like Ebay or Paypal.

All these "disruption" plateforms Airbnb,Kickstarter,Uber and such,they pretty
much work the same way.They are the new middlemen,that bypass former
middlemen,collect a fee and wash their hand of any wrong doing when things
turn south.

My only problem is with Airbnb, it can really drive prices up for long-term
renters,that have others things to do than running illegal hotels.

~~~
MRSallee
> The problem with Airbnb business,is that Airbnb soclializes the risk.Airbnb
> doesnt risk anything,hosts do.

Like Craigslist. And Ebay. And Etsy. And all these other fantastic platforms
that let people generate money / increase productivity without the old gate
keepers getting in the way. Not a new problem, and one that many consumers --
like me -- are happy to deal with versus the alternative.

~~~
CaptainZapp
I'd argue that being ripped off a couple hundred $ on an auction platform, or
an e-commerce site is in a somewhat different category than getting your
apartment ransacked by speed freaks, or you being attacked by a mentally
volatile driver with a hammer.

~~~
MRSallee
What are you talking about?

~~~
lmkg
The hammer thing is about Uber. It was in the news recently.

