I approve of the law as it stands. Hotel taxes and hotel regulation improve my quality of life.
He breaks the law for money. As a result, I would like to see him punished.
(As a secondary matter, he is loathsome for defrauding his landlords -- renting out space to be used as a hotel is a much higher-risk proposition than a long term residence)
Except there is a debate now, because hotel law was not created to regulate people renting out their places. So now people on both sides need to agree on a solution, given it's not clear whether hotel laws apply directly to people on Airbnb or not.
This is a similar (if not the same) issue that Uber/Lyft and similar companies are facing with current regulation all over the world.
Slavery was legal in the US for a long time, and a lot of people were fine with it. Does that mean it should have stayed that way?
Hotel law was absolutely created to regulate people renting out their places. The early working-class hotels were owner-occupied tenements with short leases. Hotel regulation was written with that picture in mind.
And I simply cannot believe you compared hotel regulation to the institution of slavery. It is not just in-apt, it is totally inappropriate. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
Please provide a reference to your claim about hotel law being created to regulate early working-class hotels. I can't find any. And given that NY only recently modified hotel law to ban less-than-30-days rentals on SROs, what you say is hard to believe.
I should be ashamed for making a factual comment? Slavery is only shocking now, but it was completely normal a few hundred years ago and for thousands of years before that. Would you prefer I compare hotel law to gay marriage then? The principle is the same anyway, people believe or agree on something until the premise for that is no longer acceptable or no longer true. Then a debate starts and change must happen. You are rejecting change and accusing the people who are creating the change of being criminals, I think you should be ashamed of that.
This is utter bullshit. There have people making political stands against slavery for centuries. In the US, there were laws being brought in in 1777, right after independence. In England, there was a 16th century case where a slave brought from Russia would not be recognised under English law. Slavery in France was prohibited early in the 14th century.
Slavery has a long tradition of people opposing it. Even 'thousands of years before that', there were societies where slavery was explicitly forbidden. The Achaemenid Empire (500-300BC) banned slavery due to its Zoroastrian religion.
I didn't say slavery was accepted by everyone, I said it was normal and that only not it's shocking. I guess I should have said it's only shocking now to most people.
But that is besides the point. I don't want to debate about slavery, and that is not the point of the article, I used slavery only as a contrast to exemplify how people agree or disagree with something, then debate, then come to some agreement.
He breaks the law for money. As a result, I would like to see him punished.
(As a secondary matter, he is loathsome for defrauding his landlords -- renting out space to be used as a hotel is a much higher-risk proposition than a long term residence)