Unlike YouTube, which has tons of legitimate uses for folks uploading their own content, Airbnb is basically built on the illegal uses in its major markets like NYC. The places in NYC on Airbnb that are illegal aren't some annoying minority. Every single offering on Airbnb that is for less than 30 days and is not operated by a licensed hotel is illegal. Every single one. Unlike YouTube which has significant legitimate uses in all markets based on original content (and is a majority of what YouTube is used for), Airbnb has no legal uses in NYC for sublets of less than 30 days.
If Airbnb wanted to operate legally and protect the rights of its legitimate customers while still preventing illegal activities (as you are suggesting they do), it would only permit rentals of 30 days or more unless the 'host' has a hotel license and the proper permits. The simple fact is that Airbnb knows its business in NYC is nearly entirely built on illegal rentals and doesn't care.
Ah, I didn't realize that Airbnb scored that narrow legal victory on appeal (which may still get challenged) in September. So, for the moment, own room and shared room rentals are legal in NYC as long as the owner is present the entire time the 'guest' (renter) is there.
A quick search for a room in Manhattan for a single weeknight next week shows that:
Shared room: 116
Own room: 819
Entire place: 911
My original point stands, though. About 1/2 of Airbnb listings in NYC are illegal and Airbnb is fully aware of that fact yet still profiting from it. If, as the original comment claimed, Airbnb was interested in operating full legally, they could simply disallow "Entire Place" listings in NY for less than 30 days if the 'landlord' does not have a hotel license.
About 1/2 of Airbnb listings in NYC are illegal and Airbnb is fully aware of that fact yet still profiting from it.
Good. We should all strive to break at least 2 or 3 "laws" a day. It builds character.
It's also good for reminding the jack-boots who run the government that We The People are still the ultimate source of political power and that we aren't going to just roll over and accept their totalitarian bullshit.
The government is we the people, the jack-boots are a reflection of us chosen from among us. This us vs them thing is childish, we are them and they are us. This totalitarian bullshit exists because we mostly like it that way, if we didn't it wouldn't be so. Blame your fellow citizens rather than this made up them you've invented.
You seem to be an example of me, 5 years ago, when I believed all the rules and laws were there because that's what "the people" wanted and not how society and laws are actually put in place, and for what purpose...
A healthy skepticism of the status quo would do you good in life.
I do quite fine in life thank you, and it's never about what the people want and never has been, it's about what the people allow. The government is made up of the people, it's not us vs them, it's just us.
The government is we the people, the jack-boots are a reflection of us chosen from among us
Talk about childish... sheesh. That might be true in principle, but in practice it's anything but. There is plenty of evidence that our government does not reflect the "will of the people" in many areas, and that's even IF you accept the idea that "the will of the people" means anything and conveniently overlook the "tyranny of the majority".
Don't give me this crap that our government has some sort of legitimacy just because we go through the charade of voting and what-not every so often.
No one said anything about the will of the people or legitimacy, but since you're unable to respond to what I actually said and clearly are just repeating some anti-government rant you're accustomed to barfing out, I won't waste my time.
No one said anything about the will of the people or legitimacy
Didn't they? Hmmm...
respond to what I actually said
Glad to see that you aren't actually interested in digging deeper and examining issues that lie underneath the surface. Sure, let's all be pedantic twits and focus on the words and not the meaning. That'll make everything better!
Yes, it would make everything better because people like you would stop being so presumptuous as to think you're a better judge of what I mean than me. The world needs more pendants and less of you.
Right. And we the people don't want other people turning our apartment buildings -- our homes we live in -- into hotel rooms with the associated noise, security, privacy, and sanitation issues. That's why we have these laws in place.
Contracts can handle all of those issues quite well. Clearly if you own a building, and I lease a room from you, I lease it under terms you set. Violating those terms would be a breach of contract and valid grounds for terminating said contract... I doubt much of anybody would contest that.
But, OTOH, to suggest that we need a law against it, and to bring to bear the weight of "government" and the threat of force backed by men (many men) with guns (big guns), over sub-letting a room? Pure hogwash.
Yet the temporary housing market in NYC (and probably in other places) is deeply, fundamentally broken-on-purpose. Public perception attributes this to the actions of a hated group of entrenched stakeholders (landlords/hoteliers/etc) who use their economic power to buy political muscle and distort the market to screw the common man.
This public perception is perhaps near-isomorphic with reality in the most extreme cities, which is precisely where AirBnB is the strongest. Regulatory objections aside, this suggests they are a boots-on-the-ground solution to a real pain point.
At what point must the law be recalibrated to follow norms and good sense?
Airbnb creates the painpoint of a hotel business being created in our apartment builds - our homes that we live in - against our will (and against the law, the lease we signed, and the lease the offender signed), with all of the noise, sanitation, safety, and privacy issues that go along with it. It's a destructive practice that comes at the expense of the folks who actually live here.
If Airbnb wanted to operate legally and protect the rights of its legitimate customers while still preventing illegal activities (as you are suggesting they do), it would only permit rentals of 30 days or more unless the 'host' has a hotel license and the proper permits. The simple fact is that Airbnb knows its business in NYC is nearly entirely built on illegal rentals and doesn't care.