Huh? Why does he have to do that? I can understand being suspicious of those who actually come and STAY in the Airbnb, but to use your line of argument against the person renting out the room makes no sense to me. What exactly does the hotel permit specify? That the toilet is clean? That the building is structurally sound?

Among others, that it meets fire codes.

Just wait until an AirBNB customer dies in a fire because the property didn't meet fire safety requirements. AirBNB probably wouldn't survive the fallout.

One AirBnB customer DID die from an unsafe tree-swing on the property: https://medium.com/matter/living-and-dying-on-airbnb-6bff8d6...

>>Huh? Why does he have to do that?

Because hotels are subject to those regulations. It's not optional for them. Why should it be optional for AirBnB hosts?

Because AirBnB hosts, in general, are not running a hotel.

The distinction is purely legal - in this case, the semantics matter quite a bit.

I don't know if they do. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

At the end of they day they are directly competing with hotels. In order to ensure the competition is fair, they should be subject to the same regulations.

And what if the competition isn't fair already?

What if I just want to rent out one room in my home on the side, not as a business? Why, then, should I be subject to the same requirements as a huge corporation with dedicated multistory buildings, many more customers, staff, and so forth?

To me, it sounds like the taxi industry pre-Uber. Lots of questionable-value regulation created by incumbents that doesn't really hurt anyone in the real world when it's mostly ignored.

> Because AirBnB hosts, in general, are not running a hotel.

I don't know whether it's the majority, but quite a lot of them are running hotels, though often illegal hotels under local law.

>Because AirBnB hosts, in general, are not running a hotel.

Of course they are. Are you paying the host to stay in a room they own? Hotel.

Which isn't what most people think of when they hear "hotel".

Really? What do "most people" think when they hear "hotel"?

edit: for all you down voters, he is the dictionary definition of the word "hotel":

"an establishment providing accommodations, meals, and other services for travelers and tourists."

Which means every "Airbed and Breakfast" is a hotel.

Most Airbnbs I've stayed at do not offer meals. In my local jurisdiction, all hotels must provide meals like your definition lays out. By that fact an Airbnb would /not/ qualify as a hotel legally

If providing a meal is part of the definition that makes something a hotel, that's true; the way you state it is a requirement that hotels must comply with, though, which would mean AirBnB might qualify as a hotel, but also be in violation of the requirement.

Theres lots of places where AirBnB (or hosts on the platform) meets the definition of a hotel and simultaneously often fail to meet the legal obligations of a hotel.

It certainly depends on where you live but almost all jurisdictions have those sorts of requirements. For example, first thing I saw on Google

>Environmental health specialists inspect every hotel at least twice a year or more often as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the Hotel, Food Service Establishment, and Public Swimming Pool Act of 1985* and the hotel rules and regulations. Current hotel permits must be displayed in a prominent location for the public to view and the inspection report must be available for public scrutiny.

https://www.tn.gov/health/article/eh-hotels#sthash.fTwnqZnV....

Maybe this is more true of countries like India, where I'm from, where I can imagine hygiene standards being more "flexible". But here in Western Europe for example, or the US, airbnbs are almost better maintained than I'd maintain my own house. And I think there's a good reason for this: the impact of reviews. Even in India, I can't imagine a place going far looking like a cheapo dorm room, because people will definitely look at reviews.

I can understand hotels having a legitimate objection to the differential regulation that gives Airbnb hosts a cost advantage, but there are good reasons for exempting (some) hosts: generally, once you run a business at scale, there's a disconnect that leads to cutting corners with safety, which is what prompts these regulations.

If a hotel room is just one of a thousand properties (the thinking goes) then the owner might be too casual about safety issues -- hence regs to force them to care. But if it's a room in the owner's very own house, there is no such "incentive incompatibility": a fire is much more than just a financial loss for them, so -- if anything -- they're overcautious! Thus, it's reasonable to exempt the renting out of one's primary residence from these additional safety regs.

With that said, your general point still stands: many of these hosts are "superhosts" who rent 3+ properties, which does (from the perspective of regulatory concerns) look like a hotel business and which therefore does merit similar regulation.

Nobody looks at that when renting a hotel.

Maybe because by and large, hotels have a hard time getting around being inspected. So there is no need for the average consumer to spend the time to do the research so they can say "yep, government regulators are doing a good job!"

As with most regulations, it drives up the cost a bit for the end user, but it's worthwhile - and when done properly, invisible to the consumer.

Because they don't need to, because it's mandatory for hotels.