Uber and Airbnb will be regulated legislative or through unions. Ask yourself just wtf are cabs so much more inefficient than Uber and hotels more expensive then Airbnb?
Few drivers depend completely on Uber for their income, Airbnb is still on a legal gray zone.
This won't last forever. Uber drivers will unionise, tenants who live around Airbnb hosts will pressure the government for legislation and so will hotel providers.
Uber is pivoting to logistics. What's Airbnb doing? Wouldn't surprise me if they soon build their own hotel.
Also, few cab companies subsidize rides with borrowed money in the name of growth.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out that way - housing that was used for permanent residence is now getting converted into airbnb rentals. People are now acquiring properties in order to have a "spare room" - ands those "spare rooms" would absolutely be occupied by a long term resident if they were not being used as short term hotel-like rentals. For instance, people are now using the anticipated income from a spare kid's bedroom to outbid a person who would have otherwise used that bedroom for, well, a kid. Kids cost a bundle, and they don't pay anything like a well heeled tourists for the right to occupy their bedrooms. In a place like SF, where everything goes to a bidding war, a family with the extra costs of kids has very little hope going up against an investor who plans to convert the house into a hotel.
BTW, I absolutely agree that some of this really is efficiency (spare rooms, people on vacation). But at this point, I think it's pretty clear that airbnb is driving displacement and conversion on a large scale.
It is immensely reasonable (yes, in my opinion) for cities to pass laws that ensure a proper mix of housing, including housing for families with children. These laws are not obsolete just because someone wrote a Rails app where you can type in an address and click a "Create Hotel" button.
I overwhelmingly agree that SF needs to build more, but I don't think this basic reality will change. SF's population of children has plummeted in my lifetime, from about 22% to below 14% now. Airbnb is hardly the only factor, but I believe it is making the problem worse.
However, the argument can be made that the sharing, while not in the classical sense, does reduce the impact on resources through efficiencies. So in that sense, people are sharing resources (as in sharing a bus ride --you both pay) and making less impact on earth's resources.
Small cab companies in that sense were more inefficient, among other things, because an idle car (one without a medallion) could be put to use to taxi people around. Same for AB&B. People arguably maximize the use of a house --by renting their spare rooms (the use case has morphed since inception, granted). I think you can see where this model, whatever it's called makes more efficient use of our resources.
I don't know whether it is or not (and I assume the answer is different in different places), but it bears mentioning.
Why should they be different?
I'm guessing this is about this, "The new law would require Airbnb and other short-term rental websites to post registration numbers on listings or email the number and name of the host to the Office of Short-Term Rentals, The City’s agency tasked with enforcing the regulations." (From http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-poised-require-airbnb-list-regi...)
So "their" "free speech rights" are "violated" because they have to post registration numbers.
Basically, the city wants to hold Airbnb responsible for user-generated content. The city also wants Airbnb to hand over users' personal information. Both the EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology think that these requirements violate federal law. (Though EPIC thinks otherwise.)
Airbnb gets paid for the rentals, not for the listings. Also, they actively control the content (try putting an URL in the listing). Mistaking Airbnb for a publishing medium for user-generated content seems disingenuous at best.
There certainly is a struggle between ownership rights and the right of cities to regulate business within their jurisdiction.
As a renter, I can sympathize with wanting to avail more rental properties to renters, but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal. It's not confiscation, but it also kerbs your ability let your property as you wish --and I say this as a renter who arguably would benefit from this politician's policies.
PS move HQ to Brisbane and take the corp taxes with you.
OK, let's completely legalize Airbnb-style temporary rentals... but make the host bear the full cost of it. Not the small fraction of the cost the host thinks about, but the actual cost with all the externalities factored in.
Because really the only way Airbnb works is if it offloads significant costs onto unconsenting and often unaware third parties. And all those goshdurned gubmint regulations? They bring the cost of running a hotel-like business into line with, well, the actual cost of running a hotel-like business. But we can replace them all with just a single charge if you like.
This is the argument NIMBYs have been using against regular old renters since the beginning of time.
In the Seventeenth Century many American colonists were fleeing England due to religious persecution because their religion didn't happen to be the the dominant/majority held belief [1].
The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. The specific topic of tyranny of the majority and ways to combat it were discussed in the Federalist papers and, in my belief, is ultimately the reason the Founding Fathers structured American government the way it did (federation, checks and balances, republic, etc.).
I am not trying to argue that AirBnB is good, but it's not bad because your neighbors don't like it.
The list of things you cannot do is already extremely lengthy and much to the chagrin of homeowners. I assume you've only rented and never owned, but wait until you see what your property taxes go to, what you are allowed to build, not build, must maintain, must pay for on behalf of citizens that do not own (Denver is currently trying to raise property taxes to subsidize builders and ease purchase pain of new homeowners who currently cannot afford to buy for example). I think people are up in arms over this because Airbnb is a large player in the startup community, but the uproar of politicians creating policy for it's citizens is not absurd.
I also am very wary of the Chavezist instinct to blame property owners and businesses for the faults and failings of bad government planning and policies.
Sadly there is nothing new in politicians coming to take away more of your money & rights
Because it's the most cost-effective way of doing things, and -- in this ethically-challeneged startup culture of ours -- it gets the message across.
It's also no different from how regulations are applied to most all other industries in that regard. Liquor stores are required to card anyone who looks like they might possibly be under 21 (and are fined for not doing so). You can argue that the city "should be going after the underage drinkers themselves" -- but decades of empirical evidence suggest this would lead to the laws being widely unenforced.
> We emailed Airbnb spokesman Christopher Nulty to ask whether the library ad was "real." He responded by email, "as opposed to a fake one :)"
A follow up email, explaining that we were in fact seeking confirmation as to whether the ads are actually from Airbnb received the following response: "Are you seriously writing on this?"
Nulty did not respond to another follow up email.
http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/10/21/passive-aggress...
No, it's not "the PR person" who's at fault.
One way or another, these decisions (and the mentality and ethos that drive them) always trickle down from the top.
It kind of makes their whole "helping the middle class" shtick even more nauseating.
They do not IMO represent an interesting application of technology. Just the profits of exploiting lag time between what is possible, and what is 'burdened' by consumer and labor protections.
I.e.: the industries they have moved into are highly regulated for pretty transparent reasons. Their MO works well until the regulators catch up.
not really. they were caught, and their response is f* you, rather than to ask forgiveness. whether or not you agree with their behavior, they are very much NOT asking for forgiveness.
This analogy is obnoxiously flawed.
rental car agency:consumer != (airbnb:host or host:guest)
Rental car agencies ensure drivers (who use the agency's cars) are licensed.
AirBnB is being asked to ensure hosts (who use AirBnB's platform) are licensed.
Hertz <-> Driver
AirBnB <-> Host <-> Guest
Also there is potential stupidity of passing regulations that people wont respect any ways.
Edit: Instead of responding to every single sub comment I will just add that car accidents kill 30,000 people a year. Whether or not you think AirBnB should be regulated, the analogy pairing their activity to the commonly fatal activity of driving is unambiguously on a different level. A more appropriate analogy is perhaps a fishing license.
A much better analogy would be a franchisor has a responsibility to ensure a franchisee has appropriate business licensure. However, I do not know where the liability lies in this scenario.
Driving a vehicle (your own or renting someone else's) is an activity requiring a license for the agency to validate.
I'm unaware of any place in the world requiring a license to sleep and eat breakfast.
Strictly interpreted, the 3rd amendment prevents the government from being able to force homeowners to quarter soldiers. If you think about the real intent of the bill though, it's obvious that the mindset is "you are free to use your own house without government interference."
Realize that at the time, HUGE numbers of homeowners informally had a room or two for boarders to supplement their income. It would have been considered ridiculous at the time for the government to say you couldn't lend a room out for money, which is probably why this interpretation was not formally codified.
It's a stretch, but amendments have been interpreted in more creative ways to accomplish personal-freedom goals (think, right to privacy -- interpreted as an implied constitutional right, but not mentioned anywhere).
that's a real stretch. that would nullify all zoning ...
They had tanneries then, and there is more than a gradual difference between operating a tannery and quartering a bunch of soldiers in someone's house. One interferes with the life of the householder. The other interferes mostly with the life of the neighbours.
Would be easy to interpret it as, the right to use residential properties for lodging purposes (hotel, apartments, B&Bs) cannot be violated, without letting you set up industrial operations.
I think it'd be safe to say that Airbnb would have a tough row to hoe trying to base their case on the Third Amendment.
AirBnB probably knew they'd lose locally, so either they thought "we'll end up appealing anyway, let's go right to the Feds" or "let's make a longshot stab at a 1st Amendment rights claim and avoid the local court."
They stand to lose at either level, because the SCOTUS has already weighed in on "the local government took unlawful control over my real property" -- a rent-controlled NYC landlord's case was turned down by the Justices a couple years back from even being considered in the Supreme Court.
And there are standing regulations already in place for hotels and motels.
AirBnb doesn't have a chance here, really.
The faux taxi services are somehow skating from being held to the bar for being illegal taxi services, but probably not for long.
The "control them, tax them, make them lick our boots, what can they do?, they can't do anything about it" mentality is heavy in the SF city leadership.
Believe it or not, some people -- lots of people, actually - are 1000% okay with that. Too many in SF, that's for sure.
Campos wants:
- to be seen as someone who helped the City make more money from the fines and registration requirents
- to appease the vast majority of renters in San Francisco who feel that no owner has a right to their property, the City must be in control -- Campos' voting bloc consists of that group
The problem with objectively dictatorial behavior from government is no one has the guts to stand up to them.
EXCEPT AirBnB!!!
GO AIRBNB !!
Britain just told Merkel and Hollande (who are the real string-pullers in the EU) to scrap off and die.
Tyrannical behavior from people "who tell you what to do and you can't do anything about it" usually ends badly for the perps.
See Nicolae Ceausescu for example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD-XNTVgDW0
Sometimes people who abuse their power do not lose it gracefully.
Many of us are watching what becomes of Maduro in Venezuela. The entire population there is out of food and rioting and eating dogs and cats.