Airbnb’s Work to Fight Discrimination and Build Inclusion
September 8, 2016 9:43 AM Subscribe
We want to ruin cities in the most equitable way possible.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:46 AM on September 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 9:46 AM on September 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
they're also threatening to sue the state of ny and knock down cuomo on the playground and steal his lunch money if they don't get their way wrt that crackdown law
posted by poffin boffin at 9:53 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 9:53 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course their policy goes beyond some laws. Chiefly, many states still do not protect LGBT people from discrimination. Even from a mere coldblooded capitalist standpoint, it would be bizarre if they split-and-tailored the policy to only meet the bare minimum of each individual state.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:53 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:53 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Age discrimination is a real issue too. If you're older than your mid-30s good luck booking some of these places with hosts in their early 20s.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:56 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 9:56 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's interesting that they will now block a host from accepting reservations once a host has said the space is not available. Can you turn down a reservation because someone's reviews are too low?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Age discrimination is a real issue too. If you're older than your mid-30s good luck booking some of these places with hosts in their early 20s.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:56 AM on September 8
More about this please. Is this a real thing?
posted by Keith Talent at 10:04 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is what the PDF says:
I think the idea is that if a host rejects a guest for the reason that they aren't available, then the listing should be taken off the market for those dates. If the host specifies another reason, then that reason should be honest (and could be scrutinized for bias). Letting hosts hide behind "oh, not available those dates" and then rent it anyway to someone else can cover up a lot of funny business.
posted by zachlipton at 10:27 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hold hosts accountable. Some guests have reported requesting a booking and being informed by the host that a listing that was advertised as vacant was not available. In some cases, it appears that these listings were then made available for the same trip to guests of a different race. Going forward, Airbnb will develop a feature to help prevent this from happening. If a host rejects a guest by stating that their space is not available, Airbnb will automatically block the calendar for subsequent reservation requests for that same trip. This feature will be implemented in the first half of 2017.(Why does it take so long to implement this?)
I think the idea is that if a host rejects a guest for the reason that they aren't available, then the listing should be taken off the market for those dates. If the host specifies another reason, then that reason should be honest (and could be scrutinized for bias). Letting hosts hide behind "oh, not available those dates" and then rent it anyway to someone else can cover up a lot of funny business.
posted by zachlipton at 10:27 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Age discrimination is a real issue too. If you're older than your mid-30s good luck booking some of these places with hosts in their early 20s.
Uh-oh, I'm 40 and have stayed with probably a dozen 20-25 year olds without issue, I really hope this isn't a thing.
posted by Cosine at 10:33 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uh-oh, I'm 40 and have stayed with probably a dozen 20-25 year olds without issue, I really hope this isn't a thing.
posted by Cosine at 10:33 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's interesting that they will now block a host from accepting reservations once a host has said the space is not available. Can you turn down a reservation because someone's reviews are too low?
Honestly, if someone could do a Airbnb 101 on when and how people currently can reject (from the host's perspective), that would be great. These changes sound like a good first step but I don't really have a strong grasp on the way things are now.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:43 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Honestly, if someone could do a Airbnb 101 on when and how people currently can reject (from the host's perspective), that would be great. These changes sound like a good first step but I don't really have a strong grasp on the way things are now.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:43 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Why does it take so long to implement this?)
Integrated property managers maybe? I imagine they are having to evaluate contracts and work with large integrated property managers who maybe have a single space listed inside a large apartment building where they have 100 other units available and that single unit is kind of a "placeholder" in their inventory. That's probably a violation of AirBnB's EULA but enforcing that with a large PM who represents large dollars coming into your coffers is not a black and white conversation and probably involves C-Level Execs and Legal Departments on both sides to sort out.
(I don't work at AirBnB, at another large company in the same space)
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:54 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Integrated property managers maybe? I imagine they are having to evaluate contracts and work with large integrated property managers who maybe have a single space listed inside a large apartment building where they have 100 other units available and that single unit is kind of a "placeholder" in their inventory. That's probably a violation of AirBnB's EULA but enforcing that with a large PM who represents large dollars coming into your coffers is not a black and white conversation and probably involves C-Level Execs and Legal Departments on both sides to sort out.
(I don't work at AirBnB, at another large company in the same space)
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:54 AM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Age discrimination is a real issue too. If you're older than your mid-30s good luck booking some of these places with hosts in their early 20s.
Cite, please?
My husband and I, well out of our 20s and only one of us left in their 30s, have never had a problem booking with younger hosts.
posted by Kitteh at 10:57 AM on September 8, 2016
Cite, please?
My husband and I, well out of our 20s and only one of us left in their 30s, have never had a problem booking with younger hosts.
posted by Kitteh at 10:57 AM on September 8, 2016
I am 58 and am an Airbnb host. I accept everyone always. Much to my surprise, young guests "get" Airbnb and are very easy to have around. My experience with older guests has been much, much, much more negative. They have been the only ones in my experience to write nasty, untrue reviews, to grade harshly -- they do not understand the serious blow a low star rating is -- to show up at the wrong time without notice, to be obviously and unforgiveably racist and homophobic in my urban neighborhood, and to just generally be difficult. Not every middle-aged person, but enough to create serious worry. Boomers (and I am one) are the worst! Not accepting older guests is a learned behavior, in my experience. I accept older guests, don't get me wrong. But, gee whiz. Older people on Airbnb, you might try sending a message to a potential host that you understand how Airbnb works and will not freak out if you see a person of color or someone whose gender is not immediately and plainly obvious. This would certainly allay my fears.
posted by djinn dandy at 11:02 AM on September 8, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by djinn dandy at 11:02 AM on September 8, 2016 [30 favorites]
Airbnb has also assembled a permanent team of engineers whose purpose is to root out bias in the way the company functions
Y'all. This is potentially badass. I know an "engineer" is probably the last person you'd think would be good for this position, but I am an engineer and I think I would be able to contribute MIGHTILY to an effort like this.
/me has sads that I don't work for AirBnB. And probably couldn't because non-compete agreements.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:05 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Y'all. This is potentially badass. I know an "engineer" is probably the last person you'd think would be good for this position, but I am an engineer and I think I would be able to contribute MIGHTILY to an effort like this.
/me has sads that I don't work for AirBnB. And probably couldn't because non-compete agreements.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:05 AM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
djinn: Interesting, I was recently in a guest house in Uzbekistan and the host said basically the same thing, older "Westerners" meant much more work and how he preferred young people like me (I'm 40).
posted by Cosine at 11:14 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Cosine at 11:14 AM on September 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Y'all. This is potentially badass.
Honestly i read this in the reverse way. "Come up with a way to give us as complete of plausible deniability as possible with the minimal business impact and cost"
That or like, make a bunch of real suggestions but shoot down all the hard ones... and then when they're criticized go "We have top people on it! look at these milquetoast changes we've made, and these other ones in the pipe!"
This is the sharing economy, after all. Look at... any other company like this.
posted by emptythought at 11:21 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly i read this in the reverse way. "Come up with a way to give us as complete of plausible deniability as possible with the minimal business impact and cost"
That or like, make a bunch of real suggestions but shoot down all the hard ones... and then when they're criticized go "We have top people on it! look at these milquetoast changes we've made, and these other ones in the pipe!"
This is the sharing economy, after all. Look at... any other company like this.
posted by emptythought at 11:21 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder how they'll deal with the listing I just saw circulating on Twitter that said that the hosts "cannot accept guests arriving by bus or motor coach" which is such an obnoxious basis for discrimination that I don't even know where to start.
posted by EvaDestruction at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by EvaDestruction at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
If they wanted to get serious, they'd base the percentage they pay to the hosts based on their feedback ratings.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:58 AM on September 8, 2016
posted by blue_beetle at 11:58 AM on September 8, 2016
I'm obviously missing something, but how would Airbnb hosts know whether the guests arrive by bus or train, and why is it that they would care other than not too hidden classism?
posted by jeather at 11:59 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by jeather at 11:59 AM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Come up with a way to give us as complete of plausible deniability as possible with the minimal business impact and cost"
When I say "potentially", that potential requires me in that picture (inserts engineer's disease AND Dunning-Kruger into this comment, hahahaha)
I know, I know, the optics on my optimism are totally terrible but really, one of the things I focus on in my career is eliminating bias in business technologies cause I'm personally invested in that cause...
/me slinks away knowing this is just a pipe dream
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:07 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
When I say "potentially", that potential requires me in that picture (inserts engineer's disease AND Dunning-Kruger into this comment, hahahaha)
I know, I know, the optics on my optimism are totally terrible but really, one of the things I focus on in my career is eliminating bias in business technologies cause I'm personally invested in that cause...
/me slinks away knowing this is just a pipe dream
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:07 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If it's this listing, it says:
posted by Etrigan at 12:07 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regrettably,we cannot accept guests arriving in DC by bus or motor coach. If you are travelling in the northeast corridor, especially from New York or Philadelphia, we suggest you take the Amtrak train service.That sounds more like "We don't have parking for a bus" than "Ew, icky bus people."
posted by Etrigan at 12:07 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't see how it's about bus parking being the problem, they're renting out a private room for two people. I think the icky bus people hypothesis is the more obvious interpretation.
posted by skewed at 12:12 PM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by skewed at 12:12 PM on September 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
The idea that they're asking, in the court of public opinion, hosts to be 'beyond legally responsible' for not discriminating, while arguing in actual court that they, the corporate entity, shouldn't be held accountable for illegality on the part of hosts does not exactly inspire confidence.
This makes sense to me if you look at where their incentives lie: If hosts are *ist, that turns off customers: both those that are discriminated against and allies.
If hosts list spaces that are "technically" illegal to rent, but are fine as far as the customers are concerned, customers are fine: no one identifies as an "ally" of short-term rental prohibitions.
As far as disability access is concerned, I think this is trickier, as long as AirBnB wants to maintain the figleaf that all/most of it's hosts are small time folks. The house I live in now isn't wheelchair accessible, and I'd find it pretty unfair to be forced to add ramps if I wanted to rent it out on occasion (I don't). If AirBnB is enforcing accurate accessibility information, that seems like it would be far enough.
To the extent that AirBnB results in less availability of accessible hotel space, that's a legit problem, but also not one that I think is really happening. I also think that it would be reasonable to require people who maintain more than, say, 3, spaces for hosting to have at least x% of them be ADA-compliant. Of course, having special rules for the property-manager type hosts would lift the figleaf somewhat.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:13 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
This makes sense to me if you look at where their incentives lie: If hosts are *ist, that turns off customers: both those that are discriminated against and allies.
If hosts list spaces that are "technically" illegal to rent, but are fine as far as the customers are concerned, customers are fine: no one identifies as an "ally" of short-term rental prohibitions.
As far as disability access is concerned, I think this is trickier, as long as AirBnB wants to maintain the figleaf that all/most of it's hosts are small time folks. The house I live in now isn't wheelchair accessible, and I'd find it pretty unfair to be forced to add ramps if I wanted to rent it out on occasion (I don't). If AirBnB is enforcing accurate accessibility information, that seems like it would be far enough.
To the extent that AirBnB results in less availability of accessible hotel space, that's a legit problem, but also not one that I think is really happening. I also think that it would be reasonable to require people who maintain more than, say, 3, spaces for hosting to have at least x% of them be ADA-compliant. Of course, having special rules for the property-manager type hosts would lift the figleaf somewhat.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:13 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
renting a whole apartment for less than 30 days is illegal in New York, but that hasn't stopped AirBNB from listing apartments in New York with under 30-day minimum rentals
It really does not advance the credibility of the anti-AirBNB cause when people repeat these spurious talking points. It is only illegal to rent a whole apartment for less than 30 days when (a) the resident is not present and (b) the building has more than three units. Of the numerous times I've rented a whole apartment in NYC, I can think of only one where both of those things were true and the rental was potentially illegal (in the other cases, the owner was present in an adjacent unit, or the building was a brownstone with three units).
posted by enn at 12:14 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
It really does not advance the credibility of the anti-AirBNB cause when people repeat these spurious talking points. It is only illegal to rent a whole apartment for less than 30 days when (a) the resident is not present and (b) the building has more than three units. Of the numerous times I've rented a whole apartment in NYC, I can think of only one where both of those things were true and the rental was potentially illegal (in the other cases, the owner was present in an adjacent unit, or the building was a brownstone with three units).
posted by enn at 12:14 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't see how it's about bus parking being the problem, they're renting out a private room for two people. I think the icky bus people hypothesis is the more obvious interpretation.
I also don't see how the hosts could possibly know how people arrived in their city. Which is why, as a discrimination tactic, it seems so stupid.
The only thing that could maybe make sense would be if Greyhound and the like were still as bad about maintaining schedules as they used to be known for, so the hosts got tired of getting burned by guests who missed their checkin window because "the bus was delayed." This gives the hosts carte blanche to still charge for the missed night (and maybe even cancel, because "we told you to take the train").
But, racists are stupid, so I should just assume the former.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:22 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also don't see how the hosts could possibly know how people arrived in their city. Which is why, as a discrimination tactic, it seems so stupid.
The only thing that could maybe make sense would be if Greyhound and the like were still as bad about maintaining schedules as they used to be known for, so the hosts got tired of getting burned by guests who missed their checkin window because "the bus was delayed." This gives the hosts carte blanche to still charge for the missed night (and maybe even cancel, because "we told you to take the train").
But, racists are stupid, so I should just assume the former.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:22 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't see how it's about bus parking being the problem, they're renting out a private room for two people.
We are a traditional B&B offering five rooms, all listed on Airbnb.posted by Etrigan at 12:29 PM on September 8, 2016
no one identifies as an "ally" of short-term rental prohibitions.
Hang out in San Francisco sometime. Plenty of folks consider themselves fans of short-term rental prohibitions, because short-term rentals keep apartments, particularly rent controlled apartments, off the market for long-term tenants who actually want to live here. It's a contentious issue, because people should have some right to do as they wish with their property, including rent it out on a short-term basis, and enforcement is tricky, but it's a big deal in cities with limited housing supply and rent control.
posted by zachlipton at 12:31 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hang out in San Francisco sometime. Plenty of folks consider themselves fans of short-term rental prohibitions, because short-term rentals keep apartments, particularly rent controlled apartments, off the market for long-term tenants who actually want to live here. It's a contentious issue, because people should have some right to do as they wish with their property, including rent it out on a short-term basis, and enforcement is tricky, but it's a big deal in cities with limited housing supply and rent control.
posted by zachlipton at 12:31 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regrettably,we cannot accept guests arriving in DC by bus or motor coach. If you are travelling in the northeast corridor, especially from New York or Philadelphia, we suggest you take the Amtrak train service.
How would they know? Do they demand to see your travel documents? I mean, if someone arrived in MPLS, I would have no way of checking whether they arrived by Megabus, Greyhound, Amtrak, rideshare or hitch-hiking.
It sounds dog-whistley to me.
posted by Frowner at 12:32 PM on September 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
How would they know? Do they demand to see your travel documents? I mean, if someone arrived in MPLS, I would have no way of checking whether they arrived by Megabus, Greyhound, Amtrak, rideshare or hitch-hiking.
It sounds dog-whistley to me.
posted by Frowner at 12:32 PM on September 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also, re the "no bus-riders" thing - I bet it discourages people who are not as familiar with the service, or who have been kicked around by bureaucracies. You might think that there was some easy way for the host to check or you might plausibly fear that you'd arrive without an Amtrak ticket stub and they'd kick you out, leaving you with nowhere affordable to stay. The whole thing sounds like putting right wing security people at the voting booth, in a weird way - you know they can't actually stop you even if you have, like, an unpaid traffic ticket, but some people don't know that and some people just get too stressed to handle it.
It's all this loosey-goosey, no-rules-man, racist-dogwhistle stuff that makes me prefer to kick down for hotels when possible.
posted by Frowner at 12:39 PM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's all this loosey-goosey, no-rules-man, racist-dogwhistle stuff that makes me prefer to kick down for hotels when possible.
posted by Frowner at 12:39 PM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
I disagree that you can tell from the listings that they are illegal. How do you know whether the resident will be present? Again, just because the listing is for a full unit, the resident may still be present in the building. Many people who own buildings live in one unit while renting out others in the same building. In these cases, they are present, but renting an entire unit.
posted by enn at 12:41 PM on September 8, 2016
posted by enn at 12:41 PM on September 8, 2016
Many people who own buildings live in one unit while renting out others in the same building.
This sounds a lot like a hotel, you realize.
posted by Etrigan at 12:45 PM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
This sounds a lot like a hotel, you realize.
posted by Etrigan at 12:45 PM on September 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
This sounds a lot like a hotel, you realize.
To me it sounds like a bed-and-breakfast, a class of institution that has existing for a long time without precipitating any moral panics until the advent of AirBNB, as far as I know. Like AirBNB rentals, traditional bed-and-breakfasts are often in buildings with limited accessibility and have not generally been held to the same standards of construction (e.g. fireproofness) to which larger hotels are held.
Of course, I realize that AirBNB has made this kind of small-scale short-term rental much more widespread than it had been for the previous few decades. But it seems odd to me to pretend that this whole category of lodging was invented by AirBNB from whole cloth. If nothing else, it's giving them a lot more credit for creativity than they deserve.
posted by enn at 12:54 PM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
To me it sounds like a bed-and-breakfast, a class of institution that has existing for a long time without precipitating any moral panics until the advent of AirBNB, as far as I know. Like AirBNB rentals, traditional bed-and-breakfasts are often in buildings with limited accessibility and have not generally been held to the same standards of construction (e.g. fireproofness) to which larger hotels are held.
Of course, I realize that AirBNB has made this kind of small-scale short-term rental much more widespread than it had been for the previous few decades. But it seems odd to me to pretend that this whole category of lodging was invented by AirBNB from whole cloth. If nothing else, it's giving them a lot more credit for creativity than they deserve.
posted by enn at 12:54 PM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
To me it sounds like a bed-and-breakfast, a class of institution that has existing for a long time without precipitating any moral panics until the advent of AirBNB, as far as I know.
Pre-existing B&B's are migrating to Airbnb's platform? Seems more like apartments that were formerly rented out as people's homes are being taken off the rental market & artificially inflating rents. I don't think B&Bs do so much of that.
Airbnb. Uber. Walmart. Charter schools. Have always boycotted, always will.
posted by univac at 1:00 PM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
Pre-existing B&B's are migrating to Airbnb's platform? Seems more like apartments that were formerly rented out as people's homes are being taken off the rental market & artificially inflating rents. I don't think B&Bs do so much of that.
Airbnb. Uber. Walmart. Charter schools. Have always boycotted, always will.
posted by univac at 1:00 PM on September 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
Like AirBNB rentals, traditional bed-and-breakfasts are often in buildings with limited accessibility and have not generally been held to the same standards of construction (e.g. fireproofness) to which larger hotels are held.
They are regulated and licensed, however, and there isn't (or at least, hasn't been) a nationwide chain of B&Bs that it makes more sense for the government to get involved in. Industrializing a practice tends to attract regulators' attention.
posted by Etrigan at 1:03 PM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
They are regulated and licensed, however, and there isn't (or at least, hasn't been) a nationwide chain of B&Bs that it makes more sense for the government to get involved in. Industrializing a practice tends to attract regulators' attention.
posted by Etrigan at 1:03 PM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
This ties back to the distinguishing of the host and Airbnb, for purposes of assigning responsibility: if it's unfair to force you to make your housing accessible, then surely it unfair to make any given host to make their housing accessible? And if it's unfair to put that on any given host, and also unfair to put that on Airbnb, then suddenly no one is responsible for providing accessible rentals...other than actual hotels, etc, outside of Airbnb's system.
There are lots of regulations that explicitly, or just in practice, apply differently for "casual" commercial activities vs. "actual businesses." I agree that AirBnB is a little shady in their claims that they are just facilitating "casual" couchsurfing, and so their hosts shouldn't be held to the same standards as "businesses."
The ADA has a bit of this, in that the regulations don't apply to private housing, but they do apply to "places of public accommodation," which include "hotels." I think there is a morally defensible case to be made that someone renting out their cabin for the weekend isn't turning the cabin into a "place of public accommodation," and so shouldn't have to bring the space into compliance.
But, because I do think that AirBnB does have hosts that are "actual businesses," holding those hosts to the ADA standards would be reasonable. Hence the rule I'd support: if you have more than 3 pads for rent you need to provide accessible ones. But, I can also see how trying to thread that particular needle could open the company that is already facing compliance fights to regulatory hassles they don't have the bandwidth to deal with right now.
Obviously, a company that can't comply with regulations in the long term, shouldn't be allowed to continue as a going concern. In the short to medium term though, I think prioritization (that does not result in death or injury to customers) is reasonable. So, I'm ok with the current "Hosts: be honest about your accessibility" rule, for now.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are lots of regulations that explicitly, or just in practice, apply differently for "casual" commercial activities vs. "actual businesses." I agree that AirBnB is a little shady in their claims that they are just facilitating "casual" couchsurfing, and so their hosts shouldn't be held to the same standards as "businesses."
The ADA has a bit of this, in that the regulations don't apply to private housing, but they do apply to "places of public accommodation," which include "hotels." I think there is a morally defensible case to be made that someone renting out their cabin for the weekend isn't turning the cabin into a "place of public accommodation," and so shouldn't have to bring the space into compliance.
But, because I do think that AirBnB does have hosts that are "actual businesses," holding those hosts to the ADA standards would be reasonable. Hence the rule I'd support: if you have more than 3 pads for rent you need to provide accessible ones. But, I can also see how trying to thread that particular needle could open the company that is already facing compliance fights to regulatory hassles they don't have the bandwidth to deal with right now.
Obviously, a company that can't comply with regulations in the long term, shouldn't be allowed to continue as a going concern. In the short to medium term though, I think prioritization (that does not result in death or injury to customers) is reasonable. So, I'm ok with the current "Hosts: be honest about your accessibility" rule, for now.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
We're going to Asheville in November and at least a handful of listings I found on Air BnB were actually B&B's. I thought that was interesting, if odd.
posted by Kitteh at 1:41 PM on September 8, 2016
posted by Kitteh at 1:41 PM on September 8, 2016
"I think the idea is that if a host rejects a guest for the reason that they aren't available, then the listing should be taken off the market for those dates. "
Its a good first step, but is it really that punitive to bias, since the host was more than willing to forgo payment in lieu of 'those people' sleeping in their precious home? Once upon a time, they spent money on giant crosses, water hoses and robes, what's the loss of forgoing a couple hundred bucks compared to 'decency'? Frankly, this is a half-measure in the vein of 'we take these allegations very seriously."
Host: "I'm not going to say its because you're black but the room isn't available."
AirBnb: "Boom! That's right the room isn't available. No backsies, no do overs."
Host: "Yeah, that's what I said, the room isn't available."
AirBnb: "yep, totally not available"
Host: "fine by me."
AirBnb: "fine..."
Host: "fine...."
{awkward stare...}
POC guest: "All you're doing is saving that asshole the trouble of blowing off another black couple This is the 5th rejection today...uhh.. can I get a place to stay now?"
AirBnB and Host: " ITS NOT ABOUT YOU!"
POC guest: "..."
If a host starts building a track record of being 'unavailable' for POC guests, AirBnB should have a sting bot to attempt to A/B test reservations of white vs 'other' and if they fail to offer equal accommodation kick them off the system and publish the results to other hosts till they get the message. If they don't like it, let them go start a AryanBnB in some dark corner of the internet.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 3:02 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Its a good first step, but is it really that punitive to bias, since the host was more than willing to forgo payment in lieu of 'those people' sleeping in their precious home? Once upon a time, they spent money on giant crosses, water hoses and robes, what's the loss of forgoing a couple hundred bucks compared to 'decency'? Frankly, this is a half-measure in the vein of 'we take these allegations very seriously."
Host: "I'm not going to say its because you're black but the room isn't available."
AirBnb: "Boom! That's right the room isn't available. No backsies, no do overs."
Host: "Yeah, that's what I said, the room isn't available."
AirBnb: "yep, totally not available"
Host: "fine by me."
AirBnb: "fine..."
Host: "fine...."
{awkward stare...}
POC guest: "All you're doing is saving that asshole the trouble of blowing off another black couple This is the 5th rejection today...uhh.. can I get a place to stay now?"
AirBnB and Host: " ITS NOT ABOUT YOU!"
POC guest: "..."
If a host starts building a track record of being 'unavailable' for POC guests, AirBnB should have a sting bot to attempt to A/B test reservations of white vs 'other' and if they fail to offer equal accommodation kick them off the system and publish the results to other hosts till they get the message. If they don't like it, let them go start a AryanBnB in some dark corner of the internet.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 3:02 PM on September 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
It really does not advance the credibility of the anti-AirBNB cause when people repeat these spurious talking points. It is only illegal to rent a whole apartment for less than 30 days when (a) the resident is not present and (b) the building has more than three units. Of the numerous times I've rented a whole apartment in NYC, I can think of only one where both of those things were true and the rental was potentially illegal (in the other cases, the owner was present in an adjacent unit..."
This does not make the rental legal. The MDL requires that class A mutiple-dwelling buildings be used only for "permanent residential purposes," which consists of "occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more." You'll notice that even AirBnB describes the exception as applying where the permanent resident "shares the apartment...i.e., a 'shared-space rental.'"
What do you think the purpose of the law is? It's not (primarily) to have the primary tenant or landlord in some random proximity to the apartment. It's to prevent all the ills caused by short-term occupancy in high-demand residential stock, most of which are not much, if at all, alleviated by having the permanent resident on another floor. You may or may not give a damn about them, but that's why the restrictions exist.
Virtually no sub-30-day whole-apartment rentals, except in the case of apartments in buildings with only one or two units (relatively rare in Manhattan, more common in outer boroughs where you have the two-family detached homes), will be legal in NYC, because very, very few hosts will want to stay in an apartment with strangers when strangers have access to the entire dwelling.
I am really not a fan of businesses pretending to be transparent intermediaries in order to dodge all liability and regulatory compliance while in actuality they are anything but. These regulatory regimes all have their flaws and their unfairnesses, but they exist for a reason. You don't like them, change them through the political process. Don't just ignore them.
posted by praemunire at 3:13 PM on September 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
This does not make the rental legal. The MDL requires that class A mutiple-dwelling buildings be used only for "permanent residential purposes," which consists of "occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more." You'll notice that even AirBnB describes the exception as applying where the permanent resident "shares the apartment...i.e., a 'shared-space rental.'"
What do you think the purpose of the law is? It's not (primarily) to have the primary tenant or landlord in some random proximity to the apartment. It's to prevent all the ills caused by short-term occupancy in high-demand residential stock, most of which are not much, if at all, alleviated by having the permanent resident on another floor. You may or may not give a damn about them, but that's why the restrictions exist.
Virtually no sub-30-day whole-apartment rentals, except in the case of apartments in buildings with only one or two units (relatively rare in Manhattan, more common in outer boroughs where you have the two-family detached homes), will be legal in NYC, because very, very few hosts will want to stay in an apartment with strangers when strangers have access to the entire dwelling.
I am really not a fan of businesses pretending to be transparent intermediaries in order to dodge all liability and regulatory compliance while in actuality they are anything but. These regulatory regimes all have their flaws and their unfairnesses, but they exist for a reason. You don't like them, change them through the political process. Don't just ignore them.
posted by praemunire at 3:13 PM on September 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
Many people who own buildings live in one unit while renting out others in the same building.
That's illegal (assuming building size over three units). Anyone who lives in one unit and rents out another is by definition not the resident of the unit being rented, which makes it illegal for them to rent it out for less than 30 days ever, even if they live next door. Anyone who owns seven units and moves between them all while renting the others out is not legally 'present' in the units being rented out, which makes it illegal for them to rent it out for less than 30 days while they are not living in it. The law requires the resident of the apartment being rented to be living in the apartment while renting it out, not to just live nearby or to have lived in it recently.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:32 PM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's illegal (assuming building size over three units). Anyone who lives in one unit and rents out another is by definition not the resident of the unit being rented, which makes it illegal for them to rent it out for less than 30 days ever, even if they live next door. Anyone who owns seven units and moves between them all while renting the others out is not legally 'present' in the units being rented out, which makes it illegal for them to rent it out for less than 30 days while they are not living in it. The law requires the resident of the apartment being rented to be living in the apartment while renting it out, not to just live nearby or to have lived in it recently.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 3:32 PM on September 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Why does it take so long to implement this?)
Software isn't magically created. That deadline seems reasonable to me.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:44 PM on September 8, 2016
Software isn't magically created. That deadline seems reasonable to me.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:44 PM on September 8, 2016
Its a good first step, but is it really that punitive to bias, since the host was more than willing to forgo payment in lieu of 'those people' sleeping in their precious home?
Not to try to get too far into the mind of a racist, I do think that something like this would have made a difference in the one airbnb refusal I've gotten (1 for 2 ain't bad, right?)
I am taking a trip to New York, involving a one night stay in NYC this coming October. I am a big fan of getting things like lodging booked early, so when I found a good deal on a "whole home" one night rental in the area I was interested in, I jumped on it back in June.
I got refused because (direct copy paste) :
So, I think that a rule that says if you refuse as "unavailable" you can't book that date at all would have incentivized this host to get his booking info right in the first place (if he isn't racist), or if he is, it would have disincentivized him from holding out for a whiter traveller.
To the extent that someone is so racist that they are willing to forego the income all together rather than have me, I'd honestly rather not book with them anyways. I'd bet the casual "well, let's see if we can do 'better'" type of bias is much more prevalent though. .
posted by sparklemotion at 7:18 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not to try to get too far into the mind of a racist, I do think that something like this would have made a difference in the one airbnb refusal I've gotten (1 for 2 ain't bad, right?)
I am taking a trip to New York, involving a one night stay in NYC this coming October. I am a big fan of getting things like lodging booked early, so when I found a good deal on a "whole home" one night rental in the area I was interested in, I jumped on it back in June.
I got refused because (direct copy paste) :
Would love to have you but im getting requests for weeks at a time for Sept and Oct. think i might need to keep the calendar open for those requests. If you want to check back in in a couple of months and the date is note taken by an extended stay, then absolutely you are welcome :)I mean... That sounds so reasonable, right? But, airbnb supports a minimum stay requirement, so that space shouldn't have even shown up on my search. And I do have my very black face in my profile pic, and my very foreign first name. So I have to wonder if maybe, at the very least, he was hoping to get somebody different for that particular Thursday night (my white traveling companion joked that she should have tried to book it, but I didn't want to deal with it, because ugh).
So, I think that a rule that says if you refuse as "unavailable" you can't book that date at all would have incentivized this host to get his booking info right in the first place (if he isn't racist), or if he is, it would have disincentivized him from holding out for a whiter traveller.
To the extent that someone is so racist that they are willing to forego the income all together rather than have me, I'd honestly rather not book with them anyways. I'd bet the casual "well, let's see if we can do 'better'" type of bias is much more prevalent though. .
posted by sparklemotion at 7:18 PM on September 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hang out in San Francisco sometime. Plenty of folks consider themselves fans of short-term rental prohibitions, because short-term rentals keep apartments, particularly rent controlled apartments, off the market for long-term tenants who actually want to live here.
Portland too, as a quick perusal of /r/Portland will tell you. There are almost daily anti-AirBnB threads. Local alt-weekly Willamette Week is regularly grandstanding on the issue, too.
posted by msalt at 11:53 PM on September 8, 2016
Portland too, as a quick perusal of /r/Portland will tell you. There are almost daily anti-AirBnB threads. Local alt-weekly Willamette Week is regularly grandstanding on the issue, too.
posted by msalt at 11:53 PM on September 8, 2016
It's a contentious issue, because people should have some right to do as they wish with their property, including rent it out on a short-term basis, and enforcement is tricky, but it's a big deal in cities with limited housing supply and rent control.
In Amsterdam, this is a *big* problem. If you own an apartment, it is very difficult to rent it out long term without significant issues. For example, there's legally no such thing as a time-limited rental agreement, so you can find that it is very difficult to get a tenant out. (So in my case, I'm living in Hong Kong, and theoretically if I return to Amsterdam then I could get any potential tenant out of my apartment. In practice, however, I have had friends caught in extended court fights over exactly this case.) Furthermore, Amsterdam has a point system for fairness-checking rental levels, but it isn't pegged to current housing prices. So a real scenario if you rent out your apartment long-term is that you get a tenant in place who goes to housing court and gets the points reduced (they can be very arbitrary to define) then you could find yourself with a tenant whose rent doesn't cover your mortgage and who you can't get out.
As a consequence, for years apartment owners have refused to rent to Dutch people and have only been willing to cut 6 month or one year contracts. (Expats are more likely to believe they are valid.) And now a lot of those same people are working with Air BnB or other similar smaller agencies because there's even less risk. While using their apartment this way is technically illegal, in a risk/benefit analysis the risk is much smaller than the other options.
Or many apartment owners do what I did when I went abroad for a few years-- they sell. Which isn't ideal either since there's a real need for affordable long(er) term rental in the city. And for many apartment owners, depending on the market, they can't do that without taking a bath. Dutch complain heavily about the prevalence of AirBnB and the lack of decent rentals for locals, but they don't seem to realise the constrained options for owners. (Even those of us who think of ourselves as not-so-evil.)
All of this is to say that AirBnB is often just one player in a complicated mess of law and custom around property.
posted by frumiousb at 1:20 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
In Amsterdam, this is a *big* problem. If you own an apartment, it is very difficult to rent it out long term without significant issues. For example, there's legally no such thing as a time-limited rental agreement, so you can find that it is very difficult to get a tenant out. (So in my case, I'm living in Hong Kong, and theoretically if I return to Amsterdam then I could get any potential tenant out of my apartment. In practice, however, I have had friends caught in extended court fights over exactly this case.) Furthermore, Amsterdam has a point system for fairness-checking rental levels, but it isn't pegged to current housing prices. So a real scenario if you rent out your apartment long-term is that you get a tenant in place who goes to housing court and gets the points reduced (they can be very arbitrary to define) then you could find yourself with a tenant whose rent doesn't cover your mortgage and who you can't get out.
As a consequence, for years apartment owners have refused to rent to Dutch people and have only been willing to cut 6 month or one year contracts. (Expats are more likely to believe they are valid.) And now a lot of those same people are working with Air BnB or other similar smaller agencies because there's even less risk. While using their apartment this way is technically illegal, in a risk/benefit analysis the risk is much smaller than the other options.
Or many apartment owners do what I did when I went abroad for a few years-- they sell. Which isn't ideal either since there's a real need for affordable long(er) term rental in the city. And for many apartment owners, depending on the market, they can't do that without taking a bath. Dutch complain heavily about the prevalence of AirBnB and the lack of decent rentals for locals, but they don't seem to realise the constrained options for owners. (Even those of us who think of ourselves as not-so-evil.)
All of this is to say that AirBnB is often just one player in a complicated mess of law and custom around property.
posted by frumiousb at 1:20 AM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Older people on Airbnb, you might try sending a message to a potential host that you understand how Airbnb works and will not freak out if you see a person of color or someone whose gender is not immediately and plainly obvious. This would certainly allay my fears.
Should Muslims send a message to potential Airbnb hosts that they're not radical Islamists?
Should African-Americans send a message to potential Airbnb hosts that they're nice, middle-class people with white-collar jobs?
Because this suggestion smacks of that. Members of a group by race, religion, age, etc. shouldn't have to answer for or apologize for poor behavior by other members of that group.
(Note: I am in no way suggesting that older people have been discriminated against, as a group, to the same degree that Muslims or African-Americans have.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:54 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Should Muslims send a message to potential Airbnb hosts that they're not radical Islamists?
Should African-Americans send a message to potential Airbnb hosts that they're nice, middle-class people with white-collar jobs?
Because this suggestion smacks of that. Members of a group by race, religion, age, etc. shouldn't have to answer for or apologize for poor behavior by other members of that group.
(Note: I am in no way suggesting that older people have been discriminated against, as a group, to the same degree that Muslims or African-Americans have.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:54 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly i read the "no bus riders" thing as "we don't want icky poor people", not "we don't want icky brown people"
I've applied for many jobs over the years where they went "reliable transportation required(BUS DOES NOT COUNT) right on the application. My first thought was "well fuck, ugh" then my second thought was "...but how would they know?". And they drilled on it again before the interview started.
I know reading dogwhistle racism as dogwhistle classism is a problem in and of itself, but that was my immediate memory. Many friends encountered that one at various places too.
And yes, i'm perfectly aware that on the east coast all those megabus type services are heavily associated with brown people, and often "covered in chinese writing" etc. I know there's racism at play here, and i knew it as soon as i saw it, and i know the east coast has different associations for those charter buses. but it just reminded me of that very suddenly. I think this is about poor people and brown people, basically.
Amusingly, in a dark not-really way, once you get to the level of "vaguely middle class office job" they start GIVING you bus passes instead of trying to gatekeep people who ride the bus. Funny how that works...
posted by emptythought at 9:47 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've applied for many jobs over the years where they went "reliable transportation required(BUS DOES NOT COUNT) right on the application. My first thought was "well fuck, ugh" then my second thought was "...but how would they know?". And they drilled on it again before the interview started.
I know reading dogwhistle racism as dogwhistle classism is a problem in and of itself, but that was my immediate memory. Many friends encountered that one at various places too.
And yes, i'm perfectly aware that on the east coast all those megabus type services are heavily associated with brown people, and often "covered in chinese writing" etc. I know there's racism at play here, and i knew it as soon as i saw it, and i know the east coast has different associations for those charter buses. but it just reminded me of that very suddenly. I think this is about poor people and brown people, basically.
Amusingly, in a dark not-really way, once you get to the level of "vaguely middle class office job" they start GIVING you bus passes instead of trying to gatekeep people who ride the bus. Funny how that works...
posted by emptythought at 9:47 AM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly i read the "no bus riders" thing as "we don't want icky poor people", not "we don't want icky brown people"
That's a perfectly reasonable reading. But it's not any better.
It would be one thing if AirBnB functioned more like a hotel where payment isn't collected until checkout (outside of cc holds which are a whole 'nother thing.) If the host couldn't be reasonably assured of payment, prejudging people based on their likely ability to pay might be a little squicky, but it's not unreasonable.
But AirBnB holds the fees for the stay in escrow once the booking is confirmed. The hosts know that they will get paid even by "poor people." So really, it comes down to not wanting poor people because they are "icky." Which is unreasonable on it's face without even considering the fact that given the demographics of the area the vast majority of "poor" people visiting DC are probably people of color. (I'm not saying that DC wouldn't also be a vacation destination for poor white people, what with the monuments and all that, I'm just making a gut assumption that poor folks are probably likely to vacation where they have 'people', and most people in DC are brown).
posted by sparklemotion at 11:07 AM on September 9, 2016
That's a perfectly reasonable reading. But it's not any better.
It would be one thing if AirBnB functioned more like a hotel where payment isn't collected until checkout (outside of cc holds which are a whole 'nother thing.) If the host couldn't be reasonably assured of payment, prejudging people based on their likely ability to pay might be a little squicky, but it's not unreasonable.
But AirBnB holds the fees for the stay in escrow once the booking is confirmed. The hosts know that they will get paid even by "poor people." So really, it comes down to not wanting poor people because they are "icky." Which is unreasonable on it's face without even considering the fact that given the demographics of the area the vast majority of "poor" people visiting DC are probably people of color. (I'm not saying that DC wouldn't also be a vacation destination for poor white people, what with the monuments and all that, I'm just making a gut assumption that poor folks are probably likely to vacation where they have 'people', and most people in DC are brown).
posted by sparklemotion at 11:07 AM on September 9, 2016
"And yes, i'm perfectly aware that on the east coast all those megabus type services are heavily associated with brown people, and often "covered in chinese writing" etc. "
Just wanted to point out that that's not the case. Everybody takes those buses since the only other choice is Amtrak or flying which tends to be multiple times the ticket price.
posted by I-baLL at 11:37 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just wanted to point out that that's not the case. Everybody takes those buses since the only other choice is Amtrak or flying which tends to be multiple times the ticket price.
posted by I-baLL at 11:37 AM on September 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
What I-baLL said is spot on. Nobody in my DC and NYC friend group is poor. *Everybody* takes the bus when traveling in the Northeast Corridor because the train is crazy expensive, comparatively, and except for Boston, flying involves spending more time in security than it does in the air. You wait for an intercity bus to get into or out of DC these days, you see all kinds of people. Although I suppose I only know that because I don't own a car and am not rolling in sufficient money to justify taking the train every time I want to get out of town.
posted by EvaDestruction at 12:07 PM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by EvaDestruction at 12:07 PM on September 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Virtually no sub-30-day whole-apartment rentals, except in the case of apartments in buildings with only one or two units (relatively rare in Manhattan, more common in outer boroughs where you have the two-family detached homes), will be legal in NYC, because very, very few hosts will want to stay in an apartment with strangers when strangers have access to the entire dwelling.
I am really not a fan of businesses pretending to be transparent intermediaries in order to dodge all liability and regulatory compliance while in actuality they are anything but. These regulatory regimes all have their flaws and their unfairnesses, but they exist for a reason. You don't like them, change them through the political process. Don't just ignore them.
I didn't realize that hosts being present elsewhere in the building was not sufficient under the law.
I share your dislike for end-runs around regulation masquerading as business plans, I don't use Uber, etc. I don't know why AirBNB feels like a different kind of thing. I think, in part, it's because hotels are such psychologically oppressive, dystopian spaces—especially New York hotels (I don't know what's worse, that they cost $400/night or that you can only ever find rooms in midtown), whereas staying with a real person, or at least in a real person's home, feels amazing in comparison. (This is the same reason that, pre-AirBNB, I tried to stay in old-school bed-and-breakfasts when available and when I could afford it.)
Another part of it is that the visitors-crowding-out-locals narrative is not totally convincing in ultra-rich cities like New York. For a given Manhattan apartment, a person who could afford to live there as their residence is likely going to be much, much wealthier than a person who is paying to stay there for a night or two while visiting from some other, cheaper place. Only the former gets a vote in the policies of the city of New York, so of course those policies are going to favor the resident—but it's not clear to me why that is an unqualified good. New York is a cultural mecca to people from around the world. Don't they also have a right to the city? Who gains if middle-class people can't even visit anymore? (I say this as someone who would love to live in the city, whose grandmother drove a New York city bus for thirty years, whose family has lived within bridge-and-tunnel distance of NY for generations, and who will likely never be able to afford to live there. But I cherish my too-occasional visits, which have become much more feasible and rewarding with the advent of AirBNB.)
A third factor is that my AirBNB experiences just don't match what is described by anti-AirBNB activists. I've stayed in exactly one AirBNB (in Detroit) that was clearly set up as a profit-making venture by an absentee host. None of my other trips have involved a unit being taken off the long-term rental market:
posted by enn at 1:11 PM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am really not a fan of businesses pretending to be transparent intermediaries in order to dodge all liability and regulatory compliance while in actuality they are anything but. These regulatory regimes all have their flaws and their unfairnesses, but they exist for a reason. You don't like them, change them through the political process. Don't just ignore them.
I didn't realize that hosts being present elsewhere in the building was not sufficient under the law.
I share your dislike for end-runs around regulation masquerading as business plans, I don't use Uber, etc. I don't know why AirBNB feels like a different kind of thing. I think, in part, it's because hotels are such psychologically oppressive, dystopian spaces—especially New York hotels (I don't know what's worse, that they cost $400/night or that you can only ever find rooms in midtown), whereas staying with a real person, or at least in a real person's home, feels amazing in comparison. (This is the same reason that, pre-AirBNB, I tried to stay in old-school bed-and-breakfasts when available and when I could afford it.)
Another part of it is that the visitors-crowding-out-locals narrative is not totally convincing in ultra-rich cities like New York. For a given Manhattan apartment, a person who could afford to live there as their residence is likely going to be much, much wealthier than a person who is paying to stay there for a night or two while visiting from some other, cheaper place. Only the former gets a vote in the policies of the city of New York, so of course those policies are going to favor the resident—but it's not clear to me why that is an unqualified good. New York is a cultural mecca to people from around the world. Don't they also have a right to the city? Who gains if middle-class people can't even visit anymore? (I say this as someone who would love to live in the city, whose grandmother drove a New York city bus for thirty years, whose family has lived within bridge-and-tunnel distance of NY for generations, and who will likely never be able to afford to live there. But I cherish my too-occasional visits, which have become much more feasible and rewarding with the advent of AirBNB.)
A third factor is that my AirBNB experiences just don't match what is described by anti-AirBNB activists. I've stayed in exactly one AirBNB (in Detroit) that was clearly set up as a profit-making venture by an absentee host. None of my other trips have involved a unit being taken off the long-term rental market:
- I've stayed in rooms within larger apartments with the host present
- I've stayed in "whole units" that were essentially rooms with their own bathroom, and which likely could not have been legally rented as long-term apartments (no kitchen facilities of any kind). The host was on the other side of a wall.
- I've stayed in somebody's garden shed, also lacking kitchen facilities, while they remained in the main house
- I've stayed in units where the host was actively attempting to rent it to longer-term tenants and using AirBNB to get some income in the meantime.
- I've stayed in whole apartments where the host clearly lived most of the time, decamping to a friend or partner's place when an AirBNB guest was present.
- I've used AirBNB to book rooms in traditional bed-and-breakfasts and guesthouses, because it's often easier to pay and communicate through the app
posted by enn at 1:11 PM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I didn't realize that hosts being present elsewhere in the building was not sufficient under the law.
It might have been a good idea to check that before you started in on the "spurious talking points" that don't do the anti-AirBnB side any good, eh?
The problem is not that complex. If landlords can earn more with short-term rentals than with long-term--and, often, they can--then short-term rentals will displace long-term rentals. A $250/night room in Manhattan is a solid value, and people of middle-class-by-American-standard incomes might pay that for a splurge vacation to the big city. That's a $7500/mo. permanent rental, which would rent to a person in an entirely different class. (Even you assume 50% vacancy, you're still talking about an apartment that could only rent to someone making at least $130K/yr.) If the apartment isn't nice enough to command that rent in the long-term market, off that market it comes. Further, multifamily property values in particular are based on their return on investment to the owner. Increasing the revenues a building can generate increases the property values, which means here artificially further pricing people out of the housing market. Finally, when the demand for permanent housing is so intense, anything that reduces the stock harms residents even if the prices don't change (which isn't the case, but let's pretend). That includes actual hotels, but at least the city is involved in the planning process there.
Additionally, there are collateral social effects on the building and the neighborhood. Would you want a constant parade of partying strangers only marginally vetted by the landlord passing in and out of the apartment down the hall? Would you want your neighborhood overrun with very-short-term transients who have no incentive not to treat your street like it's their own personal party zone? Hotels are taxed in part to pay for the strain they put on infrastructure, at a rate of I believe roughly 15% of the total. AirBnB lodgers dodge those taxes--that's a significant part of their savings.
Yes, I actually do think people being able to afford to continue to live in the city where they've built a life and may even have grown up is more important than middle-class tourists being able to visit the freaking Met. It's a place where people live, not an exhibit at the zoo. And if you really love the city so much, you might consider respecting its laws to be an important value, too.
I've stayed in units where the host was actively attempting to rent it to longer-term tenants and using AirBNB to get some income in the meantime.
Not in New York, you didn't. At best, the host was hoping to dodge the normal consequences of listing the apartment at an above-market rent. But that doesn't really line up with your prior description of your NYC experiences.
It's easy to justify breaking the law to yourself when it's convenient and saves you money. I can't stand over you and make you obey the law if you feel free to do so in the absence of effective enforcement. But don't kid yourself that what you're doing is harmless.
posted by praemunire at 2:38 PM on September 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
It might have been a good idea to check that before you started in on the "spurious talking points" that don't do the anti-AirBnB side any good, eh?
The problem is not that complex. If landlords can earn more with short-term rentals than with long-term--and, often, they can--then short-term rentals will displace long-term rentals. A $250/night room in Manhattan is a solid value, and people of middle-class-by-American-standard incomes might pay that for a splurge vacation to the big city. That's a $7500/mo. permanent rental, which would rent to a person in an entirely different class. (Even you assume 50% vacancy, you're still talking about an apartment that could only rent to someone making at least $130K/yr.) If the apartment isn't nice enough to command that rent in the long-term market, off that market it comes. Further, multifamily property values in particular are based on their return on investment to the owner. Increasing the revenues a building can generate increases the property values, which means here artificially further pricing people out of the housing market. Finally, when the demand for permanent housing is so intense, anything that reduces the stock harms residents even if the prices don't change (which isn't the case, but let's pretend). That includes actual hotels, but at least the city is involved in the planning process there.
Additionally, there are collateral social effects on the building and the neighborhood. Would you want a constant parade of partying strangers only marginally vetted by the landlord passing in and out of the apartment down the hall? Would you want your neighborhood overrun with very-short-term transients who have no incentive not to treat your street like it's their own personal party zone? Hotels are taxed in part to pay for the strain they put on infrastructure, at a rate of I believe roughly 15% of the total. AirBnB lodgers dodge those taxes--that's a significant part of their savings.
Yes, I actually do think people being able to afford to continue to live in the city where they've built a life and may even have grown up is more important than middle-class tourists being able to visit the freaking Met. It's a place where people live, not an exhibit at the zoo. And if you really love the city so much, you might consider respecting its laws to be an important value, too.
I've stayed in units where the host was actively attempting to rent it to longer-term tenants and using AirBNB to get some income in the meantime.
Not in New York, you didn't. At best, the host was hoping to dodge the normal consequences of listing the apartment at an above-market rent. But that doesn't really line up with your prior description of your NYC experiences.
It's easy to justify breaking the law to yourself when it's convenient and saves you money. I can't stand over you and make you obey the law if you feel free to do so in the absence of effective enforcement. But don't kid yourself that what you're doing is harmless.
posted by praemunire at 2:38 PM on September 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
It might have been a good idea to check that before you started in on the "spurious talking points" that don't do the anti-AirBnB side any good, eh?
I spent a bit of time looking at the Multiple Dwelling Law before posting, actually. I didn't, and still don't, see anything in there about the host specifically being present in the unit. I'm taking your word for it that that's how it's been interpreted. But I wouldn't want to let that get in the way of your being nasty on the Internet, since that's clearly something you relish.
Not in New York, you didn't.
I never said otherwise. I was describing my AirBNB experiences overall, which mostly do not resemble the cherry-picked examples of anti-AirBNB campaigners.
posted by enn at 2:57 PM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I spent a bit of time looking at the Multiple Dwelling Law before posting, actually. I didn't, and still don't, see anything in there about the host specifically being present in the unit. I'm taking your word for it that that's how it's been interpreted. But I wouldn't want to let that get in the way of your being nasty on the Internet, since that's clearly something you relish.
Not in New York, you didn't.
I never said otherwise. I was describing my AirBNB experiences overall, which mostly do not resemble the cherry-picked examples of anti-AirBNB campaigners.
posted by enn at 2:57 PM on September 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I bet someone (or a collective of someone!) could make a decent living running a non-dystopian, affordable hotel. Maybe not in New York, but elsewhere.
Let me tell you about a hotel. (It's in La Crosse, WI, and you are welcome to memail me for the name if you'll be visiting.)
It is fairly affordable and outside of downtown. It's solidly built albeit out of slightly odd materials - all the interior doors are exterior-style doors, clearly bought because they were the sturdiest at that price point. It has a lot of painted cinderblock, but the effect is cozy and rustic, not YMCA-chilly. The hotel staff are very Wisconsin - super helpful but do not stand on ceremony. The rooms are large and have a real mini-kitchen with mini-stove. The wireless is free and good, and there are outlets up high at the bedside so you can lie in bed and charge/use your laptop.
There's a little hotel shop, but unlike most hotel shops, it has useful things like frozen burritos and fruit, and if it's nominally "closed" the desk staff will take care of your transaction. There's a bookcase full of DVDs and some books that you can check out, plus some board games. There's a couple of recreation/gym rooms - very ordinary, but easily accessible, well-laid out and family-friendly. And the hotel is quiet! Also, the AC really works.
It is the best hotel. I have stayed at fancier places in fancier places, I have slept on posher linens and used pear-cinnamon-pomelo shampoo from tiny bottles...but I have never had a hotel experience where the hotel was so obviously designed around what you actually need rather than what looks posh.
It might well be that there's market space for this kind of hotel - something more comfortable and homely than many hotels today but with proper rules, insurance and regulation.
posted by Frowner at 3:25 PM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Let me tell you about a hotel. (It's in La Crosse, WI, and you are welcome to memail me for the name if you'll be visiting.)
It is fairly affordable and outside of downtown. It's solidly built albeit out of slightly odd materials - all the interior doors are exterior-style doors, clearly bought because they were the sturdiest at that price point. It has a lot of painted cinderblock, but the effect is cozy and rustic, not YMCA-chilly. The hotel staff are very Wisconsin - super helpful but do not stand on ceremony. The rooms are large and have a real mini-kitchen with mini-stove. The wireless is free and good, and there are outlets up high at the bedside so you can lie in bed and charge/use your laptop.
There's a little hotel shop, but unlike most hotel shops, it has useful things like frozen burritos and fruit, and if it's nominally "closed" the desk staff will take care of your transaction. There's a bookcase full of DVDs and some books that you can check out, plus some board games. There's a couple of recreation/gym rooms - very ordinary, but easily accessible, well-laid out and family-friendly. And the hotel is quiet! Also, the AC really works.
It is the best hotel. I have stayed at fancier places in fancier places, I have slept on posher linens and used pear-cinnamon-pomelo shampoo from tiny bottles...but I have never had a hotel experience where the hotel was so obviously designed around what you actually need rather than what looks posh.
It might well be that there's market space for this kind of hotel - something more comfortable and homely than many hotels today but with proper rules, insurance and regulation.
posted by Frowner at 3:25 PM on September 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
It might well be that there's market space for this kind of hotel - something more comfortable and homely than many hotels today but with proper rules, insurance and regulation.
I think hotels are like condos, in that it's not the amenities that cost the most money, it's the real estate. So, if you're building condos (or a hotel) in any kind of large metro downtown area, a hotel needs to charge high rates to pay the bills but makes that up to the consumers with the "amenities" that actually don't cost all that much to provide, but make the place seem fancy.
In small towns (sorry La Crosse! I have good friends in you and have enjoyed my visits, but you have fewer people than the northern suburb that I used to live in), "nice, not fancy" is more sustainable.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:58 PM on September 9, 2016
I think hotels are like condos, in that it's not the amenities that cost the most money, it's the real estate. So, if you're building condos (or a hotel) in any kind of large metro downtown area, a hotel needs to charge high rates to pay the bills but makes that up to the consumers with the "amenities" that actually don't cost all that much to provide, but make the place seem fancy.
In small towns (sorry La Crosse! I have good friends in you and have enjoyed my visits, but you have fewer people than the northern suburb that I used to live in), "nice, not fancy" is more sustainable.
posted by sparklemotion at 3:58 PM on September 9, 2016
I am really not a fan of businesses pretending to be transparent intermediaries in order to dodge all liability and regulatory compliance while in actuality they are anything but.In what way is AirBnB not a transparent intermediary? Are you suggesting they control how people rent out rooms?
These regulatory regimes all have their flaws and their unfairnesses, but they exist for a reason. You don't like them, change them through the political process. Don't just ignore them.OK, what about cities such as Portland, OR that have already changed the law to create regulatory regimes for AirBnB? Are you fine with AirBnB rentals then?
posted by msalt at 11:08 PM on October 3, 2016
« Older How to extract the game data (the hard way) | A serious, well-behaved, young black cat Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:45 AM on September 8, 2016 [20 favorites]