AirBnB appears to have navigated New York politics in a naive and inexperienced manner. Uber made a similar mistake early on, but graduated to a more sophisticated approach which involved working with local regulations as opposed to trying to bulldoze through them. Announcing that they are refusing to comply with a New York State AG's subpoena, versus more subtly seeking a backdoor face-saving solution, continues AirBnB's streak.
An acquaintance, living in a building whose management was very tolerant of the short-term rental of its units, recently saw a double-digit rent increase. The owner believed, probably correctly, that he was better off leasing his apartment to a series of short-term stayers versus a long-term tenant. Ignoring rental and regulatory volatility, this makes sense.
Point is, the gripes are real. They are also the kinds of social disagreements politics is designed to deal with. Blowing past that will probably backfire, particularly in New York.
If AirBnb was not a US based company and instead say they were based in Europe or some tiny little island with no laws whatsoever, would the US laws still apply?
Their business model continues to work worldwide, no matter where they are located...
I can understand the gripe with the rents increasing, but AirBnb is only one enabler, this kind of thing was possible before using Craigslist, it's just it was more hassle involved. If the hosts believe AirBnb violated their trust and gave away their information, they will must move onto The Next Best Thing(tm).
Lots of people immediately jump to the "hotel industry protection" line of reasoning here. There's a pretty good write-up from 2010 covering common myths and reasons for wanting short-term rental protection in a place like NYC. I recommend everyone read this if this topic interests you:
"What New York State's Illegal Hotels Law Means for Travelers"
Is there anything preventing the AG from subpoenaing strictly the records of people who actually fit the bill of what they're looking for?
According to the WSJ[1] the investigation is looking strictly at "people who might be trying to skirt New York's laws by renting out multiple units or obtaining their primary residence through Airbnb for extended periods"
It seems like this can be accomplished without a whole-hog dump of every NYC-area landlord. Why not have AirBnb dump this data, with a neutral third party auditing?
One thing that doesn't smell right though:
> "Airbnb has about 15,000 hosts—or people who share their living space—spread out among New York City's five boroughs, with 87% of them renting out the homes that they live in."
I call shenanigans on this. I've done searches throughout NYC as a curiosity exercise last time this topic came up. "Whole apartment" listings vastly outnumber "room in apartment" or "shared room" listings. The notion that the vast majority of Airbnb landlords are present, or renting out parts of their existing homes, does not seem to bear out in reality.
From the AG's perspective, pretty much everyone in New York renting their place via Airbnb is breaking the law. That their goal is to only go after the flagrant violators doesn't really change the validity of their subpoena.
It says "renting out the homes that they live in". Things it does not say: "renting out part of the homes that they live in" and "are present in the home during the rental period".
If I'm on the other side of the planet for a few weeks, I still live in my home in Washington, although I am not present at that time.
I don't really get the "obtaining their primary residence through Airbnb for extended periods" line - does this mean living at Airbnbs with no other permanent address is breaking a NY law?
The effective approach that has let Uber thrive in battles like this is to leverage thier community.
Everywhere you look at the Uber debate, the story is told as members of the community standing up to the old guard – but the airbnb story right now feels like an insurgent brand standing up to the authorities.
I think this is the only way to go about getting change. If you just comply from square one, officials preceive no problem.
If you want change, you need to make people realize that there is a problem with the current system... and ignoring the laws, and then working to get them changed after the problem has been realized (a la Uber) seems to be a lot more effective.
You can't get people excited to change something they don't know/care about!
It is kind of mission critical that they don't, correct? I have stayed in one lady's place who even mentioned to us that it wasn't exactly kosher with the landlord, but she was going out of town for a conference anyway and would be gone for the week.
I see it as mission critical because it would be too easy for landlords to take that information and use it against people.
As someone on the condo board of a building, I can guarantee you that we don't need any data dump to locate people illegally renting out units in our building. We regularly look on AirBnB and VRBO for units within our building that are easily identifiable through the photographs in the listing and fine anyone in violation of the condo rules.
"I see it as mission critical because it would be too easy for landlords to take that information and use it against people."
Well they could've done themselves a favor by not illegally subletting their rental. I don't mind the concept of Airbnb but it's laughable that proponents glaze over the fact that rental agreements often prohibit subletting yet Airbnb users still rent their space anyway.
If Elliot Spitzer were still the AG, RICO would have been invoked already and they AirBnB officers would be looking at jail time.
Some violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law are misdemeanors while others are civil penalties. But in so far as NYC is concerned, AirBnB is facilitating and profiting from illegal acts.
Seems like Airbnb wants to wrestle with the long arm of the government. This will be an interesting to watch, although the saying goes: you don't wrestle with a pig. You will get dirt and the big likes it. And Feds will most likely love to get any reason to reopen the FBI probe into Nathan's case.
When you rent out a space there are laws designed to protect the renter, and many leases have clauses prohibiting subletting. Odds are many of these laws/contracts are being broken, so what do you expect?
Because it's an internet start-up you're allowed to break the law?
Because it's an internet start-up you're allowed to break the law?
Well yes, that's what they're saying. "Internet is different" is the very principle Amazon invoked to not collect sales tax for years. (I'm not saying I agree.)
As a long-term occupant of Manhattan, I (and others) believe that AirBnB ignores the feelings of those of us that want safety and security in our apartment buildings and that we certainly do not want strangers living there.
I'm only sorry that the AG didn't go after AirBnB earlier.
The reason Uber can work with the government is that they are taking on the taxi cartel on behalf of city residents. They are therefore aligned with voters, who the pols care about.
AirBnB otoh is aligned with a small minority of owners against the larger number of renters pissed off that their already high rents are exploding. The pols are taking these actions because voters are upset. AirBnB are on the wrong side of the divide. This may thus end badly for them in NY. Other cities will copy NY, and so this is a fundamental challenge to their core value prop.
> It also prohibits residents of certain buildings from renting their accommodations for under 30 days.
That is not how I would summarize the law. It prohibits residents of most buildings from renting for under 30 days. The exclusions are mainly around existing buildings that would violate the law, without Airbnb style rentals, namely university-owned buildings that are used for short-term rentals in the summer and older buildings that are apartment/hotel mixes.
Actually, legally, they sort of have to give up the data. They are taking a risk not handing over the data, thankfully it's the right risk to take. The law is malleable for a reason; laws often become outdated.
Business wise they should to do this, yes, but that still doesn't mean it's an easy "they sort of have to" situation.
Provides stability to the residential community, preventing disruption from transients not invested in the social fabric of the community, who feel free to be a nuisance.
One benefit is that it allows rent control. Without this, the arguments in favor of rent control go out the window - if the tenant can make significantly more renting out the apartment than they are currently paying, there's no legitimate reason to force their landlord to charge below market rents.
It is reasonable for the government to regulate short-term rentals in regard to health and safety as well as to protect neighbors from the hassles of living next to short-term rentals. This is why zoning laws exist.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|12 years ago|reply
An acquaintance, living in a building whose management was very tolerant of the short-term rental of its units, recently saw a double-digit rent increase. The owner believed, probably correctly, that he was better off leasing his apartment to a series of short-term stayers versus a long-term tenant. Ignoring rental and regulatory volatility, this makes sense.
Point is, the gripes are real. They are also the kinds of social disagreements politics is designed to deal with. Blowing past that will probably backfire, particularly in New York.
[+] [-] qwerta|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamjam|12 years ago|reply
Their business model continues to work worldwide, no matter where they are located...
I can understand the gripe with the rents increasing, but AirBnb is only one enabler, this kind of thing was possible before using Craigslist, it's just it was more hassle involved. If the hosts believe AirBnb violated their trust and gave away their information, they will must move onto The Next Best Thing(tm).
[+] [-] apaprocki|12 years ago|reply
"What New York State's Illegal Hotels Law Means for Travelers"
http://www.frommers.com/articles/6912.html
[+] [-] potatolicious|12 years ago|reply
According to the WSJ[1] the investigation is looking strictly at "people who might be trying to skirt New York's laws by renting out multiple units or obtaining their primary residence through Airbnb for extended periods"
It seems like this can be accomplished without a whole-hog dump of every NYC-area landlord. Why not have AirBnb dump this data, with a neutral third party auditing?
One thing that doesn't smell right though:
> "Airbnb has about 15,000 hosts—or people who share their living space—spread out among New York City's five boroughs, with 87% of them renting out the homes that they live in."
I call shenanigans on this. I've done searches throughout NYC as a curiosity exercise last time this topic came up. "Whole apartment" listings vastly outnumber "room in apartment" or "shared room" listings. The notion that the vast majority of Airbnb landlords are present, or renting out parts of their existing homes, does not seem to bear out in reality.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230444140457912...
[+] [-] judk|12 years ago|reply
Are residents splitting space with visitors, or splitting time?
A common practice is that if you get a visitor from AirBnB, the resident goes and crashes at a friend's place for the duration of the stay.
(Heh, imagine if the resident used AirBnB to find a cramped accommodation for the duration! Full liquidity in the housing msrket!)
[+] [-] smackfu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nknighthb|12 years ago|reply
If I'm on the other side of the planet for a few weeks, I still live in my home in Washington, although I am not present at that time.
[+] [-] exue|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vampirechicken|12 years ago|reply
I wonder if the AG will threaten AirBnB with abetting crime of conspiracy, or some other BS in order to coerce complince....
[+] [-] awwstn|12 years ago|reply
Everywhere you look at the Uber debate, the story is told as members of the community standing up to the old guard – but the airbnb story right now feels like an insurgent brand standing up to the authorities.
With Uber, the story always resembles this: http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/10/dc-city-council-shelves-ube...
[+] [-] MAGZine|12 years ago|reply
If you want change, you need to make people realize that there is a problem with the current system... and ignoring the laws, and then working to get them changed after the problem has been realized (a la Uber) seems to be a lot more effective.
You can't get people excited to change something they don't know/care about!
[+] [-] 27182818284|12 years ago|reply
I see it as mission critical because it would be too easy for landlords to take that information and use it against people.
[+] [-] apaprocki|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colmvp|12 years ago|reply
Well they could've done themselves a favor by not illegally subletting their rental. I don't mind the concept of Airbnb but it's laughable that proponents glaze over the fact that rental agreements often prohibit subletting yet Airbnb users still rent their space anyway.
[+] [-] simias|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JackFr|12 years ago|reply
Some violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law are misdemeanors while others are civil penalties. But in so far as NYC is concerned, AirBnB is facilitating and profiting from illegal acts.
[+] [-] joering2|12 years ago|reply
http://gawker.com/5853754/the-seedy-spammy-past-of-airbnbs-c...
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
When you rent out a space there are laws designed to protect the renter, and many leases have clauses prohibiting subletting. Odds are many of these laws/contracts are being broken, so what do you expect?
Because it's an internet start-up you're allowed to break the law?
[+] [-] auctiontheory|12 years ago|reply
Well yes, that's what they're saying. "Internet is different" is the very principle Amazon invoked to not collect sales tax for years. (I'm not saying I agree.)
[+] [-] davidf18|12 years ago|reply
I'm only sorry that the AG didn't go after AirBnB earlier.
[+] [-] not_that_noob|12 years ago|reply
AirBnB otoh is aligned with a small minority of owners against the larger number of renters pissed off that their already high rents are exploding. The pols are taking these actions because voters are upset. AirBnB are on the wrong side of the divide. This may thus end badly for them in NY. Other cities will copy NY, and so this is a fundamental challenge to their core value prop.
[+] [-] antr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|12 years ago|reply
That is not how I would summarize the law. It prohibits residents of most buildings from renting for under 30 days. The exclusions are mainly around existing buildings that would violate the law, without Airbnb style rentals, namely university-owned buildings that are used for short-term rentals in the summer and older buildings that are apartment/hotel mixes.
[+] [-] debacle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thejulielogan|12 years ago|reply
Business wise they should to do this, yes, but that still doesn't mean it's an easy "they sort of have to" situation.
[+] [-] camus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrcactu5|12 years ago|reply
I would like to side with Chesky if he gives up his data and New Yorkers spruce of their apartments...
[+] [-] ye|12 years ago|reply
That statement makes no sense. Every single household can be rented out, it's only a question of price.
[+] [-] throwit1979|12 years ago|reply
Probably best to tell this AG to go piss up a rope privately and dispense with useless press releases like this.
[+] [-] mfieldhouse|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] judk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] banjomonster|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtbigwoo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seany|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrislaco|12 years ago|reply