
Berlin Is Banning Most Vacation Apartment Rentals - haldujai
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/04/airbnb-rentals-berlin-vacation-apartment-law/480381/
======
jlg23
Some background tidbits the article does not explain very well or at all:

* For short-term rentals (vacation homes) one needs to have a permit and pay taxes.

* Subletting your apartment without permission from the landlord is illegal, making a profit and not declaring it is tax fraud (and most don't declare them because then they'd also have to have a permit and pay tourist tax).

* The landlord has to grant permission for sublets (also whole apartments) if the tenant is temporarily moving out of town but wants to keep the apartment, but also here: no profit allowed. EDIT: The landlord has a right to review _every single_ intermediate tenant - so he can refuse them (this basically rules out the AirBnB model in this scenario).

What really annoys people is that in the best locations there are lots of
people who ignore the existing laws and the rest of society has to pay for
that: by not finding an affordable space to live, by having to endure a new
set of drunk neighbors every weekend who either party in the apartment or come
home drunk and very noisy at 4am and who, understandably, don't participate in
the house community (and yes, people tend to know their neighbors and even
talk to them!).

But before adopting new laws it would have been much simpler to simply enforce
the existing laws. Get all these folks who offer apartments on AirBnB 365 days
a year and check whether they have all permits and taxes. Let them pay fines.
Put them on a list of people whose tax-statements and books are checked
annually (they do that with everybody else who commits tax fraud or just
annoys the tax clerks).

Calling German laws too rigid is everyone's right, but it is also the right of
German people to value diversity in their cities enough to protect it by those
rigid laws.

~~~
briandear
Why must everything be taxed? Tourist taxes seem to me to be among the most
ridiculous. Tourists bring in economic activity which provides far more value
than the tourist taxes collected. Taxing something results in less of it; why
a city would want to reduce tourism is beyond me. It isn't like tourists are
not paying VAT, transport taxes, etc. The business owners that sell to
tourists are making more money, which is also taxed and leads to them hiring
more people and buying more products.

However leftists love feeding the government even if it is a net loss for
economic prosperity. They want to tax everything without understanding that
taxes reduce economic activity.You certainly need a minimum level of taxation,
but it's a religion with many people. Next time you rent a car, have a look at
the various taxes. Then calculate how many taxes the car company is paying for
that euro of revenue. The same transaction is ultimately taxed each time to
money touches someone.

As far as subletting, that should be handled between the landlord and the
tenant: that's a private contract and the government ought not have any say.

If there's a problem with 'drunken neighbors,' then that also should be
handled contractually between the co-proprietors of a particular building.

Government intervention isn't necessary for any of this.

~~~
netsharc
I prefer leftism than rightism, because in my mind rightism leads to having
your water poison you, Flint-style.

I remember reading an article about Barcelona and how it was actually losing
money due to low-budget tourists: the city has to maintain/clean
infrastructure for them, but they don't bring much income. Not sure how they
tax their bars, but these people would just get wasted and puke in their
parks, and the city has to clean up after them.

~~~
amazon_not
It's just silly to tax the good thing (tourists), just because some of them
misbehave.

The correct solution is to fine bad behaviors (littering, public nuisance,
overserving drunks, etc.) and instituting fees for operating businesses that
directly contribute to the problem (for example bars, liquor stores).

~~~
hnhg
It would seem more expensive to police this adequately, prosecute, collect the
fines, etc. I'm not sure your plan could ever have ROI.

That's forgetting the impact on the life of people who actually live there in
the short term.

~~~
amazon_not
> It would seem more expensive to police this adequately, prosecute, collect
> the fines, etc. I'm not sure your plan could ever have ROI.

Of course it would be more expensive to police it, man-hours are not free. The
obvious upside is that it would stop the unwanted be behaviors and not tax the
good (tourism).

The is no need for prosecution, as fines are handles through an administrative
process nor is there a problem to collect the fines within the EU (from where
most tourists in Barcelona are) due to cross-border collections.

The plan would immediately have a ROI if enforcement costs less fines were
less than the current costs for cleanup/maintenance. Furthermore current
tourism/hotel taxes can just be changed to bar, liquor store fees and
licenses, if need be and thus have zero net impact on finances.

Lastly, and most importantly, ROI should not be the primary metric when trying
to change bad behaviors. The current situation externalizes the costs of bad
behavior, whereas my solution internalizes the cost. Even if there was a real
cost to my solution, it has a net positive benefit to the public good, and to
society that's worth paying for.

> That's forgetting the impact on the life of people who actually live there
> in the short term.

What impact? Not many are likely object to less public intoxication and puking
in the parks.

~~~
angmarsbane
I don't think it would stop unwanted behaviors by tourists. So the tourist
gets reprimanded and then leaves when their trip is over, the next tourist
comes and the process begins again. It's whackamole.

~~~
amazon_not
Of course it wouldn't stop unwanted behavior immediately, but word does get
around.

I'm not condoning any of the following, but: \- you don't bring liquids to an
airport \- you don't go to Thailand to insult the king \- you don't bring
chewing gum to Singapore \- you don't fly via the US due to the TSA \- you
don't overstay your visa

The point is, if you want to stop unwanted behaviors, you make rules and you
enforce them, and eventually (most) people, even those that haven't been to
your country, will know what isn't condoned and modify their behavior
accordingly or stay away.

------
jvm
The dynamic is a little different than in most other cities. What's really
happening here is that cheap rent is a kind of entitlement in Berlin: rent
controls extend _across_ tenants so getting an apartment is really about
persuading a landlord to take you rather than bidding at an appropriate price
point. AirBnB gets around this by allowing rentals at arbitrary price points.
This is true whether it's an owner or a renter doing the leasing, which is
very different from other markets in which it's mostly a concern of renters
abusing their leases.

> "The Berlin Senate’s ruling nonetheless reflects a general feeling across a
> city in which homes are getting harder to find: Berliners have had enough
> and they want their city back."

Translation: There is no pricing mechanism on rents in the city and it is
becoming increasingly impossible to find an apartment.

While it's certainly true that AirBnB essentially allows landlords to flout
the law, it's worth noting that the adverse effects of price ceilings on
supply are the root cause of Berlin's problems and this will not solve the
underlying problem of rents being far from equilibrium.

~~~
doener
A free market price would not fix anything - every tiny bit of flatland is
already used. What you are saying is basically: Only rich people should have
the right to live in central districts. I disagree and so do most Berliners.

~~~
d_t_w
What mechanism do you use to choose who can live in a central district, if not
the ability to pay market rent?

Right to live where you are born? That adversely affects anyone not born in a
central district.

~~~
pyrale
Right to live where you work seems to be a good one. The problem with AirBNB
isn't about too many people living in an area like SF, it's about local
population being displaced in favor of richer, temporary visitors.

It's certainly a nice thing to be able to travel and visit other cultures and
countries. But the advent of massive international transportation combined
with few tourism hotspots has created a tourism industry that can outprice
locals, and thus destroy the cultures that created the artefacts they show to
tourists.

~~~
mafribe

       Right to live where you work seems to be a good one.
    

The people who work in the center (often government, large companies) are
usually also the most well-off, so living close to work is to a good
approximation what you'd get with market prices.

    
    
       temporary visitors.
    

Temporary visitors typically visit the center which is where most of the
cultural landmarks as well as the party-infrastructure is located.

If we generalise the "live where you work" to "stay where you spend most of
your time, then it makes a lot of sense for the visitors to be housed in the
centre. Otherwise you force a large amount of commuting on them. For course
that doesn't matter much for each individual visitor because they are around
only for a short time, but that's not the right metric. It means that Berlin's
infrastructure is heavily taxed with all that unnecessary commuting by (every
changing) visitors.

~~~
pyrale
> If we generalise the "live where you work" to "stay where you spend most of
> your time, then it makes a lot of sense for the visitors to be housed in the
> centre.

The thing is, it completely reverses the meaning of my point, which was based
on concern priority, not transportation efficiency. To me, it seems important
that people whose home, job and lifestyle/culture is at stake are treated
preferably to people for whom the city is just a tmporary leisure.

By making sure that visitors don't effect too much locals, we also promote a
kind of tourism which promotes hospitality, and which ensures that the object
of visits is not destroyed by tourism consumption.

~~~
mafribe
International captial cities like Berlin are major destinations for travellers
of all stripe, and will be for the forseeable future.

Indeed, the boundary between tourists and residents is porous. Capital cities
attract a transient population from week end visitors to interns or workers
who stay a few weeks, to summer visitors who stay a season, to students who
stay for a few years, to proper residents who stay a decade or more. All of
them are a source of ideas as well as a source of income for Berlin's
industry. "Das ist auch gut so." Hence Berlin needs to cater for all. That
includes providing substantial, centrally located living space (whether hotels
or apartments) for short-term visitors.

------
solidsnack9000
A city is more than a rental market -- it's also a community. This is where
all the-market-fixes-everything kind of arguments fall short. Unfettered
development would eventually stack Berlin with enough housing but the
disruption to people's lives would be immense; and Berlin would lose much of
the charm and character that has drawn so many people there to begin with.

A city is one part market and one part enchanted forest.

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
I absolutely agree. It's ironic that we move to the places we fall in love
with, only to modify them to our own needs. But this is the history of cities.
It should always be up to local communities to accept or reject us. In a way,
you can measure the strength of local culture by how it assimilates outsiders.
Conversely, you can probably gauge the strength of an outside culture by how
resistant it is to local assimilation. Of course, purchasing power speaks many
languages.

~~~
zorked
It's a bit like tourism. You travel to see the places which get destroyed by
you being there...

~~~
personlurking
And if we take the tourism bit a bit further, the tourist's search for the
authentic ends up with companies ready and willing to offer a back door into
local culture, creating an impression of authenticity for a tourist audience
(often called "staged authenticity" in tourism studies).

This could be compared a bit to gentrification, in which I am reminded of
Gertrude Stein's phrase "there is no there there" as well as, albiet more
distantly, Marc Auge's concept of nonplaces.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Stein#.22There_is_no_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Stein#.22There_is_no_there_there.22)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_place](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_place)

------
thesimon
This might be relevant: [http://airbnbvsberlin.com](http://airbnbvsberlin.com)
(Data analysis of AirBnB rentals in Berlin)

Key facts:

* 10% of the users are offering more than one unit (so not just a spare bed)

* Average user rents out 1.3 units

* Top user is renting out 44 flats

------
drpgq
What about Ferienwohnungen that existed before AirBnB was even a thing? I
travel to Dresden every couple of months and stay in a Ferienwohnung in the
Neustadt that's been around for at least eight years. I guess under Berlin's
new rules that would be gone.

~~~
bogomipz
What is a "Ferienwohnung"? A cursory search only turned up articles in German.

~~~
adamnemecek
AirBnB minus a website plus a lamp post flier.

~~~
bogomipz
Ha ha, that's an great description, thanks.

------
bogomipz
On a somewhat related note, could anyone recommend a legitimate way to find
mid-term rentals(3-6 months)in Berlin? Or possibly a month or two on the
shorter end?

~~~
johannkaupen
Berliner here, working in Kreuzberg. Text me "Germany + 171 as net provider +
19 48 58 0" either Whatsapp or iMessage or johannkaupen at Google Mail more
details and I'll help you! Additionally: you'll find help on WG-Gesucht.de //
most of the stuff is in German, but some are texting in English too and Most
will ne Sperling German.

~~~
adriancooney
That's extremely kind and helpful! Would you mind me saving your details for
future use? I'd love to setup in Berlin at some point.

------
chx
My favorite phrase applies: dura lex, sed lex. If you don't like the
legislation, the regulation then go in and vote to change it. Rally fellow
minded people to convince others to vote in favor of what you like. Do not,
however, go around the law just because you do not like it.

~~~
ovi256
How does civil disobedience fit in ?

~~~
geebee
Isn't that a tough question? There's no way we'll ever answer it, especially
on a web discussion board.

It's an important question though, mainly because it comes up every time
people have a passionate, and perhaps legitimate, disagreement about what the
law ought to be.

High school debates aside, I think almost everyone agrees that civil
disobedience is sometimes completely justified. People also almost universally
agree that breaking every law you don't like, simply because you don't think
it should be the law, would not be justified.

So, where do regulations on short term rentals fit in?

My initial reaction is that this is an easy one. I don't think that
regulations on converting a house to a hotel get anywhere close to the
standard I'd expect for what wikipedia defines as a "active, professed refusal
to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an
occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic
violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole"…

That said, I would give the nod to people who would seek to violate some types
of zoning regulations. It is certainly possible for zoning regulations (school
districts, voting districts, and so forth) to reach vile levels of class and
race discrimination. A lot of people, for instance, might want to keep a
boarding house for migratory workers out of their district - a ban on short
term rentals could accomplish this.

In the case of airbnb, I would see that as a bit of manipulation, though - in
general, what I'm seeing is housing that used to be occupied by long term
residents, especially children who cost a lot of money and don't pay rent,
getting evicted and turned into a fun crash pad for tourists who would like to
spend a while in the wine country or the left bank of Paris. I personally
think that short term rentals are a real threat to neighborhoods like the
french quarter in New Orleans, large sections of San Francisco, and, sure,
Berlin.

In short, while I leave the door slightly open for meaningful civil
disobedience to excessively restrictive zoning laws that curtail short term
rentals, I don't see many of the current measures as coming anywhere close to
the standard for civil disobedience.

You'll never get an airtight argument as solid as a mathematical proof on
this, though. It just isn't like that.

------
erikb
How I moved from "impossible" over "how did that happen without me noticing"
to "yeah, that sounds great". All the reasons are exactly what I want: less
parties, more cheap living space. Hope it works as intended.

------
zspitzer
It's worth mentioning that the influx of refugees into Berlin has dramatically
increased the demand for housing, there are stories of landlords putting up an
affordable property online for one hour and getting 250 applications to rent
it

~~~
jlg23
Do you have anything to back up that it's the refugees who put pressure on the
market?

Refugees usually don't have enough money to compete on the open rental market
in Berlin's central districts. They can apply for "WBS" which can get them an
apartment that is subsidized by the state (for which the landlord has to apply
upfront) and which tend not to be in the center anymore but in low-income
areas where landlords have an incentive to enter that contract with the state
- they are sure that they get the rent every month on time in contrast to
fighting for months to get rid of tenants who default on their rent.

250 applications coming in over night were already common 5 years ago. I
remember that in 2001 I was seeing an apartment together with about 50 other
interested people - the ad had been up since the day before 3pm...

------
phantom_oracle
Doesn't SV and other areas that had chronic apartment shortages before AirBnB
existed now have an even greater shortage due to short-term rentals?

I know that some might argue that "build baby, build" is the solution.
However, in an earthquake-zone (which I recall California is), isn't it risky
to build skyscrapers and other large structures?

Governments are sometimes oblivious to general needs, but there must be a good
reason why more housing-construction has not been approved in some areas.

(I'm thinking in densely-populated cities like Berlin, London and Paris,
congestion and pollution might be issues they have to worry about also)

~~~
kelnos
_Governments are sometimes oblivious to general needs, but there must be a
good reason why more housing-construction has not been approved in some
areas._

Earthquakes certainly aren't the reason for SF. It's the city's byzantine
planning process, and NIMBYs and entrenched interests who get in the way of
new development in the name of "not changing the character of the city".

------
jseliger
It's almost like cities (or more specifically, voters in municipal elections)
don't realize that the only sustainable way to reduce prices is by increasing
supply: [http://www.amazon.com/TheRent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-
ebook/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/TheRent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-
ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO). We know what to do, we have the technology, and we only
lack the political will to make it happen.

~~~
bogomipz
But in the article it says towards the end that Berlin in building 50K new
units in the next 10-15 years. So in addition to banning AirBnB they are also
increasing supply. I am unsure how or why "technology" plays into it unless
you mean construction technology?

~~~
losteric
How many units were torn down to build those new units, and how desirable are
they compared to the old units? What is the price range? How does the quality
compare? Where are they located? One number doesn't capture the whole story.

Seattle has a similar problem where we do have a large number of new units
going up, but some places are still seeing upwards 50% vacancy after 3
years... because the new units aren't aligned with market demand. I'm talking
luxury apartments downtown when the growing demographic is frugal-minded
mid-20s/30s interested in neighborhoods 10-20 minute away from downtown. Even
constructions in the right neighborhood end up being a net _loss_ of desirable
units when the rent is sky high.

~~~
makomk
This is why loosening building restrictive is not a solution - builders always
want to charge a premium over the existing market price, which means building
expensive luxury flats and leaving new homes empty if necessary rather than
reducing their prices.

~~~
arximboldi
Agreed. That happened in Spain: after the crisis burst the housing bubble,
banks and private owner were simply not putting their property in the market
to avoid price falling down. I Andalucia, the goverment actually had to pass a
law that midly forced people to rent empty flats, because we were at the
ridiculous situation where a lot of people were being evicted for not being
able to afford rent, yet there were _lots_ of unused space.

So, yeah, more development might help Berlin, but it will be more effective
when accompanied by rent camps and strengthening of social housing banks.
Otherwise you are just feeding the bubble and exchanging one population by a
wealthier one.

------
code5fun
They are doing right what London is doing wrong with the so called golfies
that rent an apartment and are there only in summer with their supercars.

------
aminok
Central economic planning is disastrous.

~~~
jqm
No, central economic planning _has traditionally been viewed as_ disastrous.

Doesn't mean it "is" or "always will always be".

In fact, you undoubtedly live to some extent under the auspices of some form
of central economic planning right now. Why? Because at some point it was
realized complete lack of central economic planning is disastrous.

But you are really arguing against government controlled rent prices no? I
tend to probably agree in most cases.

~~~
Frondo
And, heh, I've seen it argued persuasively that the U.S. now operates with the
same degree of inefficiency (i.e. resources allocated less than optimally, not
responsive to market conditions, etc.) of a centrally planned economy, just
due to the concentration of money now. Sort of a de-facto central planning,
even though it certainly isn't one in name.

I tried to find the links where I saw this, couldn't. I'll keep looking.

~~~
jqm
It stands to reason. Centralized bureaucracy is centralized bureaucracy.

What was it said about the Soviet Union? That they pretended to pay people and
the people pretended to work? Well.....

------
youngButEager
Cities can make all the rent control laws they want. (See for example NYC and
San Francisco here in the USA).

Property investors can decide to never build apartments in such cities.

Then you wind up with a shortage of willing landlords. (See NYC and SF).

Some folks don't think they need willing landlords.

Okay, strike that: _some folks don 't think they need MORE, not FEWER, willing
landlords._

Rent control laws _cut the supply to nothing._ Willing landlords will NOT
build and operate in these areas.

You may not like it that willing landlords are the other party here -- the
tuple of (renter | landlord) --

but they are.

An analogy: cities use very high fines for parking in Disabled People's
parking.

By removing the benefit to park in those spots (ie. fining people hundreds of
$$) -- the supply of non-handicapped drivers parking in handicapped spots is
cut, drastically.

Another example: The supply of willing bar owners selling drinks to young-
looking people without checking their ID is small. The reason? BINGO, the city
made it unprofitable for bar owners who fail to check IDs.

When a city tells Landlords "you're a pain, here -- making next to nothing"
\-- the supply of willing landlords drops.

The result of rent control laws is A SHORTAGE OF WILLING LANDLORDS. A SHORTAGE
OF NEW APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION. CONVERSION OF APARTMENTS TO CONDOS.

Rent control REDUCES THE SUPPLY of apartments. When that supply drops -- like
it has in NYC and SF -- what happened to rents? FREAKING HIGHEST IN THE
COUNTRY! Because the DEMAND is still there, and growing. But the supply is
dropping.

The cities with the STRONGEST RENT CONTROL -- have the HIGHEST RENTS IN THE
COUNTRY!

Like hearing that? No? Then you cannot handle the truth.

Here's from the article:

The long term effect of these laws (rent controls, restrictions on AirBnB etc)
is already clear. Sweden already has these policies. Just look at Sweden to
see what the future holds.

Sweden has rent control. This causes the existing housing to be converted to
AirBnB and rentals to be converted into condominiums. It also makes it more
worthwhile to put investment money into owner-occupied housing than build new
rental apartments, as owner occupied housing isn't subject to price controls.

Almost 90% of Sweden's local government areas now report a shortage of rental
apartments. This includes countryside areas and small towns. Students cannot
get into university because they cannot find housing, or have to queue for
years.

In Stockholm, you have to wait for 10 years on average in a government queue
system to get just the chance to apply for a rental apartment. It is a similar
story almost everywhere else in Sweden. In 2013, one woman waited for 28 years
to get her Stockholm rental apartment.

Berlin is already starting to see some of these problems with large crowds of
competition for apartments at viewings etc

~~~
draugadrotten
> The cities with the STRONGEST RENT CONTROL -- have the HIGHEST RENTS IN THE
> COUNTRY!

And by this simple observation, we have found the answer why the property
owners wants to keep the rent control in place.

~~~
nojvek
I sometimes really wonder, when companies get huge valuations, how much of
that just ends up indirectly in some landlords pocket.

How do startups even afford to live there?

------
nailer
As an AirBnB customer (which I was) you have no idea what it's like to be an
Airbnb neighbor.

There are parties with hundreds of kids on the roof, weed smoked in the hall
outside our apartment, a broken front door that can only be closed by smashing
as hard as possible or not at all, stains all over the carpet outside the
Airbnb, people breaking into our house because they're drunk, people buzzing
every apartment because they've locked themselves out and it's 4AM. The place
is a 365 day Airbnb, which is illegal, and Airbnb know that too and don't
care.

AirBnB refuse to take any responsibility, even just to raise issues with the
person running the BnB. They have even repeatedly said they can't find a
listing by address - seriously, not that the address is wrong, but they they
simply do not have the capability. We can't speak to the neighbor because they
don't live there, they just rent out their apartment on Airbnb. They got
journalists to write stories about how they'd soon have an app for neighbours
last year - it still isn't rolled out in Europe despite all the press.

Love airBnB as a customer. 95% of guests are fine. 4% do stupid shit because
they're drunk, which is understandable, but having continuously drunk
'neighbors' sucks. 1% are deliberately anti social. But the company absolutely
does not give a damn about their impact on the people around them.

Tip for anyone else: call your police non-emergency number or your council.
Avoid Airbnb support. They can't help and they won't take responsibility for
the source of their income.

~~~
dang
> _But the company absolutely does not give a damn about their impact on the
> people around them._

You can't know that and it by no means follows from what you've said. It's
fine to describe your specific experiences, but not fine to cross into
overgeneralized denunciation. Especially not to gin up indignation, which is
pretty much the sole purpose of overgeneralized denunciation.

~~~
troisx
I think it's pretty awful for a YCombinator employee to come into the comments
and chastise a commenter for bashing a YCombinator company. In this case
especially, as lots of abuse stories exist about Airbnb.

~~~
dang
I've addressed this many times. When YC companies are being discussed we apply
moderation less, not more—but that doesn't mean we stop moderating altogether.
That's the way HN has always worked, and I think it's a good balance. It
wouldn't be fair for people to be exempt from HN's rules and standards just
because they're criticizing YC or a startup YC funded.

There's no substantive point about Airbnb or any other company that can't be
expressed in the way my comment above is recommending. That ought to be
obvious to anyone who reads it dispassionately and is familiar with HN.

~~~
nailer
Dan as mentioned upthread, if you think my repeated contact with AirBnB over a
year, and the impression I've had as a result, isn't substantive, could you
explain why or email me if you prefer?

I've been on Startup News / Hacker News for eight years, so I'm pretty
familiar with the site.

~~~
dang
You're responding to something so far from what I said that I don't know quite
what to tell you. What I said was that you shouldn't have posted this to HN:

> _But the company absolutely does not give a damn about their impact on the
> people around them._

... because (a) you can't know such a thing and (b) it's corrosive of the kind
of discussion we want here.

Reporting specific experiences is fine. Crossing into grandiose denunciations
is not. Those add no information; their purpose is to gin up rage, which puts
salt on the slug of thoughtful discourse.

~~~
nailer
I'm responding to exactly what you're complaining about:

> > But the company absolutely does not give a damn about their impact on the
> people around them.

As mentioned repeatedly, that's an honest impression from a year of constant
engagement. I have in no way said it is AirBnB policy to not give a damn,
simply that as someone who has attempted to engage the company about these
matters, they appear to not give a damn.

> Those add no information

I very much disagree that the resulting impression does not add value, and HN
would seem to agree, as evidenced by the HN community's reactions to your
post.

People can and do post impressions of services on HN, and have for some time.
Part of handling yourself properly is not only avoiding impropriety but also
the appearance on impropriety: being told not to post my impressions of a
company that is incompetent enough they've repeatedly stated they ___cannot
match an address to a listing_ __looks very poor when YC has a financial
interest in the company.

Respectfully, you were wrong on this one.

~~~
dang
I'm surprised that you keep insisting on this. Your statement that I objected
to said "absolutely does not". Your defense of it here says "appear not to".
Talk about moving the goalposts! If you had said something like "based on my
experience they appear not to" in the first place, obviously there would have
been no problem.

Perhaps that's all you meant to say, but what you actually said went far
beyond it in a way that is corrosive to thoughtful discourse, which is why I
objected.

~~~
nailer
You're trying to make up for a mistake by trying to invent a contradiction
that does not exist: there is no contradiction in saying Airbnb appears to
absolutely not care.

I am recounting my own person experience, so, _very obviously_ everything is
how Airbnb appears to me, and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that.
And again, it's quite reasonable to say that based on those experiences, which
I'd be happy to provide police reports, screenshots, and contacts at my local
council, Airbnb absolutely does not care.

------
frakkingcylons
They're not banning ALL AirBnB rentals. From the article:

"The new laws still don’t mean all Berlin homestays will disappear overnight.
People will still be able to rent out rooms in their homes, as long as the
rooms don’t cover more than 50 percent of the property’s floor space."

Title should be changed IMO.

~~~
drpgq
One has to think though that especially for somewhere like Berlin most people
are going to want to rent an entire apartment> I know when I go to Berlin, I
would prefer not to have to stumble drunk through someone's apartment while
they are there to get to a bedroom.

------
forrestthewoods
The solution to bad regulation is rarely MORE regulation.

------
Dramatize
Airbnb is the only reason we visited Berlin. Without it, I doubt we would
return.

~~~
miloshadzic
This is among the dumbest things I've ever read on HN.

~~~
aianus
How? If Berlin wants to make it difficult to find affordable short-term
housing then obviously some people (like me and OP) would rather go somewhere
else.

~~~
ptaipale
By the way, Berlin's hotel market is quite affordable. A room in a decent Best
Western is in the order of 50 €, which is way lower than in other European
capitals.

