

Quebec Cracks Down on Airbnb - mattm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-cracks-down-on-airbnb/article12162984/

======
weisser
I may be downvoted to oblivion for this but I really don't think my neighbors
in Boston would like it if I rented my room out on a nightly basis to people
they don't know. There are 20 units in my building so seeing many random
people coming and going would trigger great unease and I cannot say that I
would blame them for that.

I've used AirBnB and I love it but I think the biggest issue is not the
commercial property taxes (the gov't would likely disagree) but the negative
impact it could have on those living around you in other apartments. It kind
of goes back to the saying, "I don't care what people do in the comfort of
their own home," except the entranceway, stairwells and halls of an apartment
building are the shared property of all residents. This is not so much an
issue when people rent out their houses on AirBnb but my guess is that
apartments in major cities are some of their most frequently booked listings.

~~~
mef
To play devil's advocate to this argument, what's the difference between
having new tenants entering the building every week and a resident having
random friends over every week?

~~~
alukima
The rent controlled tenants below me pay about $800 for a unit that now rents
for $3200 a month. Last year when they bought a home they decided to keep the
apartment to use as a pied-à-terre and rent it out on Airbnb.

I found out about this after having three different people in a weeks time
knock on my door and ask me where the fuse boxes are. Not a huge deal if my
neighbors do it, but these are total strangers. At least when someone moves in
to my building they have multiple background checks. And since full time
residents live here they have a reason to be polite as they see me daily. They
have some connection to the building and its residents.

A few weeks after the start of this I was woken up at three A.M. by my dog
barking at the fire escape. There was someone on the fire escape looking into
my bedroom window! After calling the police I found out that it was a renter
from the unit below who wanted a better view and decided to peek into my unit
at the same time. This has happened half a dozen times in the last year.

I work typical business hours. People who stay in the unit as guests are
generally on vacation and this can lead to loud parties that last all hours of
the night. I have a few neighbors who work strange hours and we work out noise
agreements, you can't do that with people who are staying one or two days.

There's also the moral issue. It's hard to find a place in San Francisco, what
they are doing is illegal, against the terms of their lease (it's very hard to
evict tenants in San Francisco, the owners are trying), and they are denying
someone a full time residence so they can make extra cash.

I like the idea of Airbnb but I agree that the people who rent units need to
be held to some standards. A permit that neighbors can contest seems
reasonable if it's going to affect their standard of living.

~~~
supergirl
there are already laws for such disturbances. as for airbnb already being
illegal in some places, I wonder why those laws exist in the first place.

~~~
pasbesoin
There are laws, and then there is the matter of getting the laws enforced in a
timely fashion -- if at all.

And of not suffering undue material harm during the process. Such as an
extended lack of sleep adversely affecting one's employment.

There is also the possibility of escalating retaliation after you file a
complaint.

There is the time and cost and confrontation of taking the other party to
court, when that's what the law dictates and/or what police insist upon.

I'm significantly inclined to view AirBnB as a parasite upon the well being of
long term, "real" tenants.

Both I and my extended group of friends and acquaintances have, en masse, had
enough difficulty with neighbors -- before even adding AirBnB to the mix --
for me personally to give this viewpoint considerable weight.

------
guylhem
Considering the outrageous prices charged by _motels_ in every city I've been
(up to Chicoutimi) and even by road side motels near nowhere, I'm not
surprised :-/

 _> Business groups like Montreal’s Bed and Breakfast Association have been
pushing for the government to crackdown on home rentals for years._

Yeah. I sure wonder why.

~~~
cmsmith
There are regulatory mechanisms to make hotels and B+Bs pay their share of
externalities. These are things like property tax, room tax, and insurance.

Suppliers of airbnb units avoid a lot of these payments because they're paying
taxes at normal residential rates.

If the cost of a room is $100/night, and the cost of that extra stuff is
$50/night, then there is no way that hotels can compete on an even playing
field with airbnb.

~~~
skylan_q
Too bad. :)

~~~
pfortuny
Just wait for the accidents to happen and you shall see how insurance
skyrockets...

"My son died at .... because there was a defective socket."

Too bad, indeed.

------
onemorepassword
AirBnB may be the canary in the coalmine for tech, maybe more than the privacy
issues surrounding the majority of the current tech business models.

The industry idolizes "disruption" without taking any responsibility for the
negative side-effects. However, in the case of AirBnB, these side-effects
don't just affect an incumbent industry, but the private lives of completely
innocent ordinary people, who live in the same buildings that are used as
makeshift hotels.

Illegal and semi-legal subletting is a big enough nuisance as it is in major
tourist destinations (I live in one), and AirBnB is making the problem
exponentially worse.

A similar narrative applies to the presence of Uber in places with a decently
regulate taxi system.

Not all disruption is good.

~~~
dmix
> Not all disruption is good.

Tor is very disruptive. On one hand it's allowing for political dissidents to
speak and access the internet freely. On the other it's used by criminals and
child pornographers.

Even if it causes a certain level of harm, as long as there is legitimate
benefit, attempting to force everyone to go back to how things were before the
technology existed is ultimately futile and unproductive. Just like copyright
(bad for record labels) and automated factories (bad for unskilled
workers/unions). Or even Walmart (bad for small shops) and drugs (bad for
economic productivity).

We should learn to attempt to adapt our laws/policies to the new technology
instead of trying to ban it (which is currently the default reaction).

------
dmix
Competitive disruption considered harmful.

If it really was to protect the turism economy and the people of Quebec, they
should evaluate how many more people can visit Quebec now that there are
options like $25-40/night rooms.

I know AirBnB was a big reason I visited NYC since it made the trip
significantly more affordable.

~~~
potatolicious
Competitive disruption _with substantial negative externalities_ considered
harmful.

Yours is a convenient, feel-good, but ultimately incorrect and intellectually
insufficient narrative. As is any narrative where one side is the altruistic
freedom fighter and the other side might as well have vampire fangs on. The
world isn't this simple.

This isn't directed strictly at you - it's a general attitude in the Silicon
Valley echo-chamber that I find grating. Have we issued so many press releases
extolling our own virtues that we now completely believe it ourselves? Are we
so enamored with ourselves that we can't imagine any other reason for people
not liking what we do except pure greed and unmitigated corruption?

Hell, I like AirBnb. I use it. But let's not pretend that there are no
problems with it, and that there are no legitimate reasons to object to it.

~~~
dmix
I've read the other AirBnB threads on here discussing the externalities. And I
still think the cities would be better off with AirBnB than without it.

The opportunities for property owners to profit as well as providing
tourism/business visitors with $40 rooms is massive.

It's opening up a huge new bnb industry, provides a large flow of _new_
revenue for tourism businesses in the cities, greatly expands the amount of
tourists/business visitors who can afford to visit.

I'm curious which of the externalities you think can't be addressed by
property owners? For example, they can have a no-airbnb policy in the rental
agreements. Or liability safety waivers. Or security policies to limit flow of
non-tenants. Or handled via disputes between property owners or police such as
sound violations.

Besides, the incentives mentioned in the article are a) the market incumbents
"Montreal’s Bed and Breakfast Association" want protection and b) the
government wants to protect existing tax revenue/regulation fines.

At this point, it's not about externalities. It's about protecting current
revenue streams. While ignoring the potential for far greater tax revenue and
social benefit.

~~~
potatolicious
Sure, and I agree that the benefits of AirBnb ultimately outweigh the
negatives. I wouldn't continue supporting them with my business if I didn't.

But there are more than two choices here - there is a third choice besides
"let AirBnb continue as is" and "stop everything AirBnb-like". Things like
adhering to sanitation standards, paying of hotel taxes, and the rights of
residents in AirBnb buildings are all legitimate reasons to oppose AirBnb in
its current model.

> _"For example, they can have a no-airbnb policy in the rental agreements."_

This is already the case. This is also already the case in many condo/con-op
rules. In fact, in most jurisdictions I've seen stopping AirBnb is as simple
as enforcing existing laws and contracts - we don't even have to create new
ones. AirBnb owes its existence not to friendly legislation, but to a lack of
enforcement - a lack of enforcement that is coming to an end _because_ of
these negative externalities (and yes, lobbying by the hotel industry).

> _"Or liability safety waivers. Or security policies to limit flow of non-
> tenants. Or handled via disputes between property owners or police such as
> sound violations."_

And such is the _definition_ of a negative externality - to offload the costs
of these effects onto other tenants and even the city, without any recompense.
AirBnb has _created_ this need for additional legal cost and even additional
_policing_ yet is paying for none of it. The way your'e describing it, it
sounds like AirBnb is laughing to the bank and leaving the cleanup to everyone
else.

In any case, my original point is not specific to AirBnb. Your original post
is one that I see on HN a lot - whenever a disruptive product is opposed we
scream about corruption and the greed of entrenched players, and conveniently
ignore the many legitimate reasons why people might find what we do
problematic. My response is a more general complaint against our collective
holier-than-thou attitude where we can do no wrong, and our intellectually
dishonest trend of blaming said opposition squarely on simplistic villains
rather than acknowledging that technology and disruption are nuanced. Our
refusal to treat our opponents with basic respect, and our propensity to label
them with simplistic titles, is aggravating and annoying.

~~~
dmix
Interesting. I agree with most of what you said. AirBnB is relatively new,
laws have not yet been efficiently enforced, so some costs are being offset on
neighbours/cities.

But I'm not convinced that a) the costs are currently so bad it requires
market restrictions on AirBnB-style units and b) this a problem that the
courts, cities and property owners can't handle on their own - by adapting to
change.

Whereas the incentives to add restrictions on the basis of protecting existing
industry incumbents are very clear.

^ That motivation which so often dictates modern government policy is the
basis of my villainization. Once again I see the opportunity for real
economic/social benefit via technology and opportunities to address this
without restricting technology or markets (such as an evolution in property
law and defence).

Instead I see a government rushing to add new policy, without a clear
indicator that they are being representative of the best interests of their
citizens ... or even themselves.

This same narrative has repeatedly recurred a hundred times in the tech scene
(copyright, wiretapping, unlocking phones, etc). As long as the state refuses
to even attempt to evolve along with technological change and takes the market
incumbents interests first, then you'll keep seeing these posts.

------
wyck
If you're using your house as a commercial establishment (short term rentals)
you are paying commercial taxes on it, there is no reason why you should
somehow be exempt when others are not.

It's not just a fine, if you using your house as a commercial space when you
go to sell your house it will be taxed on sale just like any other commercial
entity. I'm surprised other regions are not more adamant about enforcing this.

ps. This is not about Airbnb, they crack down on any listings no matter what
the site (tripadvisor, homeaway, vrbo, craigslist, etc).

------
chm
You shouldn't blame the Government for enforcing its laws.

I would like for competition to be more open than it is, but I pay my taxes
and would like others to do so too.

~~~
stfsbrb
Amazing that you got downvoted for this. The comments in this thread which are
cheerleading "disruption" are completely glossing over the issues of taxes and
regulations. Other startups are out there making good faith attempts at
following the law and competing fairly. Why does HN seem so eager to
collectively give AirBnB a free pass?

~~~
miguelrochefort
These new services simply make the regulation and taxation issues more and
more obvious. You can't stop technology, you can't stop innovation. Once you
acknowledge that, you realize that laws have to adapt to new realities.

~~~
crdoconnor
Um, why exactly can't Airbnb help its hosts abide by the laws?

It's a $250 tax. It does not exactly seem onerous to have them provide a
reminder and a simple 1, 2, 3... list of how to make sure that they are legal
in the area they are hosting in. Maybe even a way to pay directly as part of
signing up.

In this instance, it's really not the law that needs to adapt to reality, it's
airbnb.

~~~
BrentRitterbeck
Exactly! Just because you have an idea for changing things doesn't mean that
you operate in a vacuum where real-world rules don't apply anymore. This seems
like something that's going to involve some negotiating, some real face-to-
face time. They're going to have to get out from behind a few monitors to
solve this problem.

------
cozeulodorieso
Disruption is great. Disruption means doing something else is doing, but much
better.

AirBNB -- in this context -- isn't being disruptive to the hotel industry.
They're doing the same thing, but _worse_. Where legal hotels have consumer
protections (like definitely not having lead paint and definitely sufficient
fire escapes), AirBNB... doesn't. Where hotels (and B&Bs, etc.) follow zoning
rules to make sure they're good neighbors, AirBNB... doesn't.

Now, these rules don't work all the time. They probably can be improved. But
don't act like they're merely regulatory capture. That's an aspect, but
consumer protections are real. AirBNB isn't doing the same thing better, but
doing a different thing worse.

~~~
danielharan
Cry me a river. There are _much_ more comprehensive reviews on Airbnb than
you'll get for most hotels.

This is regulatory capture under the guise of consumer protection; nothing
more.

~~~
Spooky23
Not really, it's about a company choosing to ignore the law. Craigslist did
the same thing for years with respect to advertising for "erotic services".

If the company's strategy for this issue is to declare that "users must be
aware of local regulation" while providing thousands of listings in heavily
regulated cities like New York City, they're probably going to hit some
speedbumps.

~~~
miguelrochefort
Do you seriously think it's the responsibility of the service provider to make
sure its users don't engage in any potentially illegal activities?

These services are simply glorified communication tools, and limiting what
people can communicate with them is limiting free speech.

~~~
crdoconnor
>Do you seriously think it's the responsibility of the service provider to
make sure its users don't engage in any potentially illegal activities?

If the illegal activity is "using their system as it was intended" then they
have a degree of responsibility, yes.

They should at the very least provide a warning to users in quebec that they
need to pay the $250 or they will be in violation of the law by using the
airbnb website.

This does not seem like a particularly onerous thing to implement (10 lines of
code?), either, and any judge reviewing a case against them would likely bear
this in mind.

If they were small and did not have many hosts in quebec I doubt it would be
an issue. They are clearly not any more, however.

~~~
dantheman
10 lines of code for every city, county, state, etc? And keeping it up to date
will be easy too right?

~~~
crdoconnor
>10 lines of code for every city, county, state, etc? And keeping it up to
date will be easy too right?

For every city, country and state that has special rules about renting, yes.
If they really don't want to participate in a particular market, they can let
their competitors serve it instead.

And no, it's not especially difficult.

------
olalonde
As a side note, there is no way in hell hotel prices in Quebec reflect their
fair market value. Hotels are about the same price in Chicoutimi where land is
vastly abundant as they are in Hong Kong, a tiny overcrowded island. My gut
guess is that real estate prices are at least 10x higher in Hong Kong too.
It's very hard to find an apartment below 1000$/month in Hong Kong whereas in
Chicoutimi you can find one for 2-3x the price of a night at the hotel. Makes
no sense at all even after considering the cheap imported workers hotels in
Hong Kong have access too and other economies of scale associated with a
densely populated area... Disclosure: I was born in Quebec and have lived in
Hong Kong.

------
andrewfelix
I'm feeling some hyperbole coming on, but governments rarely seem interested
in serving the interests of their constituents.

~~~
jasonlotito
In quebec's case, especially Montreal, renters have all the power. It is
fairly trivial to rent a place and never pay rent, and have laws essentially
guarantee it take a not insubstantial amount of time to get you removed. So
no, in this case, the government ones so much for its citizens that I'm
actually surprised thy are siding against airbnb here. Considering everything
else they can get away with.

------
Maven911
Quebec has a rich history of socialist laws (not necessairly a bad thing) and
rent seeking laws(bad):

Tuition is one of the lowest in North America

Medical benefits paid by the employer are considered taxable income

Weird laws on lotteries and prize giveaways that excludes Quebec from many
said prize giveaways

Tourisme board that tacks on a 'travel agency insurance premium' when
purchasing vacation packages

Quebec rental board that is very pro tenants and they can stay without paying
rent for many months

~~~
miguelrochefort
I'm ashamed of my province. I'm seriously considering moving south of the
border if they don't start to get a little more liberal (not talking about the
party here).

------
orangethirty
I wonder what will happen when someone declines to leave the rented space. Do
they have any law protecting them? Do the property owners have a law that
protects them from this? It would be interesting to see how a magistrate would
interpret a property owner renting out the place on airbnb. They are not
hotels and are not licensed as such.

~~~
noarchy
Quebec laws are very generous to renters, so this is indeed an interesting
question to ponder. As much as one can argue that AirBnb renters are "getting
away" with not paying certain taxes, they also may be getting lucky that they
don't face non-paying tenants, or ones that simply won't leave.

~~~
orangethirty
I can see the headline now: I rented my apartment in airbnb and now can't
evict the renter. It's been a year.

------
jfim
I don't know how AirBnB works, but do they charge sales tax and ensure that
all relevant tax documentation is provided for renters?

I know Quebec has been cracking down on tax evasion during the last couple of
years, enforcing the usage of MEVs (module d'enregistrement des ventes,
essentially a sealed sales recorder that prints the bill in a standard format
--- an example of the receipt is shown at [1]) for all restaurant sales to
prevent the use of "zappers" [2] and educating the public that they should
receive such a receipt for all restaurant sales.

[1]
[http://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/a-propos/evasion_fiscale/resta...](http://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/a-propos/evasion_fiscale/restauration/fac_mev.aspx)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_sales_suppression_dev...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_sales_suppression_device)

------
pfortuny
There will start to be issues and price hikes when accidents happen and the
insurance companies start taking notice of this: your home insurance price
gets mutliplied by two if you want it to cover short renting...

I see that as a non-legal positive and useful self-regulation of the market.

And then you will get adverts 'this AirBnB rental is insured', etc.

I do not see this solution as bad at all.

And I guess it is related to the hotel and B&B owners' complaints.

