
Catalonia Fines Airbnb, Threatens to Block Locals From Using Site - prostoalex
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/07/08/catalonia-fines-airbnb-threatens-to-block-locals-from-using-site/
======
jpkeisala
Makes sense. If people are using Airbnb as business to rent property it is
fair to ask they follow the law by having proper permit.

~~~
flexie
Absolutely. I would hate if my neighbor started renting out his apartment to
tourist on Craigslist or AirBnB.

~~~
snitko
It's funny how your first thought is not to go to your neighbor, ask around
and see whether this is going to be any trouble for you at all and if it is,
try to work out a solution you both would agree on. Your first thought:
permit, government, regulation. He's your neighbor for gods sake. It's not
like you can't go talk to him. Why do you, by default, treat him like a piece
of scum with which only government can deal?

Needing some kind of permit to do whatever I please with my property, if it
doesn't create problems to anybody else, is insane.

~~~
mahouse
It's not about screwing your neighbour, it's about security, it's about having
ensurance, it's about collecting taxes, it's about not being unfair to the
rest of hotels that just _follow the law_.

If you don't like the law that gives you no permission to walk around it.

~~~
snitko
Why do you think your security should matter more to your neighbor than his
ability to make money by renting out his property? He's got family to feed
too.

Why do you think collecting taxes is what everyone considers a just thing to
do?

Why do you think fairness is when hotels can charge visitors twice as much and
provide twice as shittier service?

Why do you think laws cannot be broken, if unjust? Many people smoke weed
which is illegal in many countries. Do you consider those people to be
criminals? Would you look them in the eye and tell them to go vote harder next
time and then send them to jail?

~~~
mahouse
> Why do you think your security should matter more to your neighbor than his
> ability to make money by renting out his property? He's got family to feed
> too.

Not my own security, but the security of the person who pays for the room.

> Why do you think collecting taxes is what everyone considers a just thing to
> do?

I don't care about what people thinks is just or not. Taxes must be paid,
because otherwise there would be no public services, such as healthcare or
education. We rely on them.

> Why do you think fairness is when hotels can charge visitors twice as much
> and provide twice as shittier service?

You are free to open a hotel which follows the law but has lower prices.

> Why do you think laws cannot be broken, if unjust? Many people smoke weed
> which is illegal in many countries. Do you consider those people to be
> criminals? Would you look them in the eye and tell them to go vote harder
> next time and then send them to jail?

A very weird comparison you're pulling here. I won't even bother to respond to
this...

~~~
snitko
_> Not my own security, but the security of the person who pays for the room._

Can a person decide for himself whether to stay with a government licenced
business like a hotel or with someone who wants to rent him a room without any
special permits from the government? Why are you deciding for that other
person what is safe or not?

 _> I don't care about what people thinks is just or not. Taxes must be paid,
because otherwise there would be no public services, such as healthcare or
education. We rely on them._

And roads. You forgot, no one but government bureaucrats can build roads.

So, you don't care for what other people think is just, but you're absolutely
okay with forcing your perceived conception of justice upon them by saying
"it's unfair to hotels"? What makes you think your sense of fairness is
better?

 _> You are free to open a hotel which follows the law but has lower prices_

This is impossible because the permits I'd have to obtain and rules I'd have
to comply with would raise prices.

 _> A very weird comparison you're pulling here. I won't even bother to
respond to this..._

Not weird at all. You said you can't go breaking a law if you simply disagree
with it. I gave you an example of a law that many people break and asked you
whether you would send them to jail for breaking it. If you stand by your
principle, you'd have to do it.

~~~
mahouse
> Can a person decide for himself whether to stay with a government licenced
> business like a hotel or with someone who wants to rent him a room without
> any special permits from the government? Why are you deciding for that other
> person what is safe or not?

No. By that way of thinking, people should be free not to wear a seat belt or
a helmet when driving, and that's wrong. (Now that we're talking about weird
analogies...)

> And roads. You forgot, no one but government bureaucrats can build roads.

Not here at least. Private companies can build roads and make you pay a fee
for using them. (There's always a free alternative, though.)

> So, you don't care for what other people think is just, but you're
> absolutely okay with forcing your perceived conception of justice upon them
> by saying "it's unfair to hotels"? What makes you think your sense of
> fairness is better?

I don't care about hotels, but this is not the jungle -- you need a set of
permits and pay your taxes, and not having/paying them would be unfair
competition, which is not allowed.

> This is impossible because the permits I'd have to obtain and rules I'd have
> to comply with would raise prices.

Then go to another country. We need money from taxes to maintain our welfare
state.

> Not weird at all. You said you can't go breaking a law if you simply
> disagree with it. I gave you an example of a law that many people break and
> asked you whether you would send them to jail for breaking it. If you stand
> by your principle, you'd have to do it.

Who's going to go to jail for smoking pot? At least not here. You can't sell
it though, because 1) you'd pay no taxes (it's not regulated) and 2) there are
diseases related to it, and public healthcare must pay for them.

~~~
snitko
_> No. By that way of thinking, people should be free not to wear a seat belt
or a helmet when driving, and that's wrong. (Now that we're talking about
weird analogies...)_

Exactly, they should be free to do that. How does not wearing a helmet or a
seatbelt hurts anyone else but them? Why can't they make this decision?
Wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is not going to help the other side involved in
the accident.

 _> Then go to another country. We need money from taxes to maintain our
welfare state._

Precisely what is going to happen. Also, you need tax money, but you say "go
to some other place to do your business"? Really? Do you understand logic?

 _> Who's going to go to jail for smoking pot? At least not here._ Are you
saying if I openly go smoke a joint outside in your country, cops will just
pass by and not pay any attention to me?

Anyway, I get your point and, as you can imagine, I disagree completely.

~~~
mahouse
> Exactly, they should be free to that. How does not wearing a helmet or a
> seatbelt hurts anyone else but them? Why can't they make this decision?
> Wearing a seatbelt or a helmet is not going to help the other side involved
> in the accident.

First, nobody wants to see people dying. If you want to see the cold side of
it, a lot of people fall in depressions due to traffic accidents, which in
turn means productivity lowers. And remember: public healthcare must pay for
the hospital, the medics, and if the accident makes you unable to work, you'll
get a life-time pension, which the country must pay for as well.

> Precisely what is going to happen. Anyway, I get your point and, as you can
> imagine, I disagree completely.

I don't care about liberalism, as long as it's out of my country. I respect
your point of view, though. There are countries where liberalism is working,
so I don't think it's _that_ bad. I just don't want it to be here. :)

------
ChuckMcM
Areas with high unemployment like Spain are particularly vulnerable to
disruption of the form that AirBnB is bringing to the hospitality industry,
but I chuckled at this paragraph;

"Catalonia’s regional government said Tuesday that Airbnb is in “serious”
breach of regional law and that it has ordered the company to pay €30,000
($41,000) in fines within the month _or begin adhering to Catalan law_."

I'm guessing they meant to write "and begin adhering to the law" but so often
we hear that you can either follow the law or bribe the officials to look the
other way, it reads a bit like the latter :-). I'm curious what the folks in
Spain think of this, is AirBnB a good thing or a bad thing?

~~~
RBerenguel
The problem is, they are helping people break the law (the fine is for
advertising illegal touristic rents) If someone rents a place repeatedly (for
vacationing) they need a permit (which includes checking the place for safety
measures, specially for the tenant) as well as paying another type of taxes.
Likewise for longer than 30 days renting: for this the place has to be a for-
rent place, registered somewhere else. The government is just asking AirBnb to
follow the law, advertising only legal places that have their stuff in-place.

Not only that, but it's hard to know if AirBnb hosts are declaring their taxes
properly (AirBnb could enforce this, though.)

As a Spaniard, I like seeing some disruption in areas that need it, and
promoting leasing/rentings definitely needs it. But as a freelancer who pays
quite a lot in taxes, it boils my blood that so many people (including most
government officials, granted) try to game the system.

As for the quote, I can't find it anywhere in local sources, neither did I
hear it yesterday when the officials appeared on news. So, it's probably a
writer error, meant to be _and_.

~~~
nashequilibrium
It's amazing how society will always have it's shadow over you. I work my butt
off to buy a home, my own piece of land but I have to ask the government
permission for who to let stay on my land for a certain period of time.

~~~
qq66
Land "ownership" has no basis in natural law since it's a formalization of
violence (all private land was either taken from someone else, or declared to
be owned by threatening newcomers with violence). You can't own land the way
you can own the fruit of your labor, so all land ownership is contingent on
the consent of the community.

~~~
zo1
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle)

You don't need the consent of the community to declare land as your own. There
are other moral systems and ideas to the ones you specify. Just putting it out
there, you know.

~~~
qq66
Maybe, but certainly very little land in the United States wasn't taken from
someone at the wrong end of a rifle.

------
avz
These laws and regulations were clearly created before the onset of sharing
economy. And then they were useful since they provided important safety
guarantees to the customers. However, this problem has now been solved by
technical means (peer reviews, various forms of karma or reputation scoring
etc). Many people say they feel safer, have more trust in and receive better
user experience in new sharing economy services like uber and airbnb compared
to traditional services like taxi and b&b. This suggests that the new
technical solution has potential to be better than the old legalistic one.

Perhaps it's again the time to adjust the laws and regulations to the new
situation created by emerging technology. Specifically, licensing and limits
on duration or portion of property that can be subleased should be scrapped.

When it comes to registration, then assuming the government really needs to
know about each property being subleased, services like airbnb could be
required to export their own registry for use by the gov't. Compliance with
such a law would be trivial from technical perspective (database dump with
appropriate projection in some standard format).

When it comes to taxes, then of course people renting out using airbnb should
pay their dues like anyone who makes a profit or receives an income. If they
don't, the standard measures against tax evasion apply.

~~~
Xylakant
I hate AirBNB and Uber and the like described as "sharing". As an AirBNB host,
I sublet a room. It's a rental agreement, there's nothing fancy or new about
it. There's also no notion of sharing. It's money for services, a regular
business transaction. Couchsurfing is sharing: I offer space to a guest, for
no direct return.

~~~
avz
I don't think "to share" means what you think it means. It means "to use or
enjoy something jointly or in turns" (source:
[http://thefreedictionary.com/share](http://thefreedictionary.com/share)).
This doesn't imply "for free".

The name "sharing economy" comes from the fact that the property (flat, room,
car etc) being provided for use by the customer (generally) remains in use by
the owner (either because it can accommodate more than one person or because
the owner uses it only temporarily).

Perhaps C2C (customer to customer) would be better though and would fit neatly
with other business types already called B2B and B2C. I guess it doesn't have
the same marketing flair though.

~~~
Xylakant
That's what I mean - most resources are shared. Any kind of sublet agreement
is shared. A hotel room is shared. A cab is a shared resource. A bus, a subway
is shared - much more so than an Uber car. Roads are shared. That's not a new
thing and the term "sharing economy" was coined just for the marketing aspect,
to make it sound like something nice, to have the connotation of "sharing a
meal with friends", of community. It's not. It's a cold-hearted business
transaction - there's nothing wrong with business transactions, but please if
it's business, just don't try to get emotional on me.

~~~
avz
> That's what I mean - most resources are shared.

Most resources are not shared. In the old economy only special classes of
resources designated to provide a service used to be shared, e.g. taxis and
hotels. Now thanks to sharing economy we can (in principle) share every
private car on the road and every room in every building.

> It's a cold-hearted business transaction

Most business transactions I did were warm-hearted. It's a different
discussion, but I think most people honestly want to provide a good service
and make the other person happy. It sounds like you may have encountered real
jerks out there.

Business does not preclude care, sharing or community.

~~~
Xylakant
> Business does not preclude care, sharing or community.

No, it doesn't. Quite to the contrary, good relations foster business
transactions - nobody wants to do business with jerks. But still, business is
first and foremost an exchange: I do something for you, you do something in
return. If we both get along, that's even better and if I can give you
something for free (that is, not extract the maximum value from that
transaction), that's nice and I'm sure you'd probably remember me when you can
give. Still, the primary reason for a business transaction is business, not
benevolence. That's charity then. It's dangerous to pretend otherwise.

------
taneliv
I wonder how this is different from other similar services, for example
milanuncios has heaps of private homes available for letting (or subletting)
also in Catalonia. In my experience both work the same, airbnb feels more
trustworthy and is easier to use, milanuncios has wider selection. Anyone know
the law in question? In hotels the accommodation tax was, I think, 50 cents
per adult guest, something that could probably easily be factored in airbnb's
service.

~~~
RBerenguel
As I commented below, the law says that a private place (like my home) can't
be repeatedly rented without being registered as a home (full home) for rent.
Also, separate bedrooms can't be legally rented (unless the full home is
rented): it's either full house or nothing (personally I find it rather stupid
a bedroom can't be rented legally, but anyway.) Likewise for stays longer than
30 days. It's not a matter of acomodation tax, is that homes (except those
registered as tourist apartments, which implies the full house) are outside
the laws.

------
capisce
> "after numerous complaints over rowdy visitors"

Tragedy of the commons... This is why we can't have nice things.

------
snitko
Talking about private property. People can't even rent it without government
permission and then you hear voices saying "you wouldn't have private property
if not for the government". Well, guess what, it's not yours if you need a
permission to do stuff with it.

~~~
gaius
And if you freely sign a piece of paper with the landlord that says you will
not sublet....? This is a very common clause.

~~~
snitko
Then it's a whole different story. It's a contract between the landlord and me
that I voluntarily signed. Neither me, nor anybody else never signed any
contract with government saying I cannot sublet.

