It's the same kind of regulations arbitrage that powered Uber (& Lyft, though to a lesser extent because at first they tried to make it look like riders/drivers knew each other). The difference here is that the only people who really complained about Uber/Lyft was the taxi industry, which mostly was viewed in a neutral light at best. AirBnb seems to have managed to cause disruption both to the hotel industry as well as people who live near listed properties, both of whom are seen in a more sympathetic light than taxis.

We have a lot of laws built up over the years because of safety concerns with hotels. Hotels have had scary things go on and legislatures have had to deal with the public safety problems quite often. The main problem with taxis is they are often an artificially scarce resource because of government rationing (e.g. medallions).

Also, messing around near people's homes tends to illicit a primal response.

What? How in the hell did we get to the point where building a service that lets people rent their living space to short term guests is "a conspiracy to enable illegal activity"?

If airbnb hosts aren't paying taxes properly, then the hosts are committing a crime, not airbnb. Cities may want airbnb to collect taxes on behalf of hosts, because it makes enforcement much easier. That's a reasonable thing to want. However I don't see what conceivable jurisdiction Palm Beach county has over Airbnb that would enable it to coerce airbnb to collect said taxes. Accordingly, I can't imagine why anyone in airbnb's position wouldn't sue, in order to avoid the formation of precedent that allows every municipality in the country to impose whatever requirements they want on airbnb.

You may think airbnb is a net negative for many communities, and you're entitled to your opinion, but that's not evidence that crimes have been committed.

As for why US Attorneys and State AGs aren't bringing criminal charges, probably because they are actual lawyers who understand that you would have to provide evidence that a law has been broken.

The illegal listings is crony capitalism. Hotels don't want to compete.

And tax evasion is a completely different topic, that is not why Airbnbs are shut down. Every industry has tax problems.

It sounds like they're pushing back because if there's a list of taxes paid (with specific addresses), then municipalities may harass owners, even if they're complying with local laws[1].

There's also the meta level issue that holding site operators responsible for the actions of their users is a very slippery slope. Anything that chips away at the communications decency act could have terrible effects for the internet as we know it[2]. For example, as it currently stands if I were to libelously claim that Paul Graham has a meth lab in his basement[3], I could be charged with a crime, but not HN. If the CDA were weakened, blog operators could be liable for comments posted on them. I don't think anyone reasonable wants that.

I think SF's law did a good job balancing things - hosts need to be licensed by the city (the app lists their license #) and can IIRC only lease 90 days out of the year. I looked at a recent receipt for a stay, and they even collected taxes.

[1] https://www.eff.org/mention/making-civil-liberties-case-airb...

[2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-HomeAway...

[3] To be clear this is a hyperbolic example, and I have no reason to think PaulG has anything illegal in his basement :)

The illegal listing is not just about hotels, it is about neighbors who don't want to deal with vacationers and parties and disruption.

It seems they want to enjoy travelling to other cities while blocking other travellers from coming to their city. Same with Waze traffic being routed on previously less known streets.

No, they just want travelers to sleep in places designated for travelers. This wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't a real problem - a well-behaved group of transients is near-unnoticeable in a neighbourhood and by definition doesn't disturb anybody.

Another problem is that the proliferation of this practice seems to be disturbing the already tense situation on the housing market. Meeting an odd couple from the other side of the world is fun. Realizing that you can't find affordable flat to buy in a city because a significant portion of it is scooped up for renting and short-term leases - that drives up societal discontent.

Why is this crowd suddenly all for restrictive zoning when it comes to AirBnB, yet zoning is evil NIMBYism otherwise?

Being for AirBnB not driving illegal behaviour != being in favour of zoning. Those two concerns are orthogonal. Empathizing with other people's legitimate issues doesn't imply being pro-zoning either.

It seemed like you were in favor of corralling travelers into designated zones and took an issue with residential areas being used for short term leases.

This has nothing to do with hotels. That's a cop out.

Yeah, let's force citizens to bow to their government masters and pay their "fair" share, while Big Hotel lobbies away, competes unfairly and gets huge tax benefits.

Let's allow richer-than-us foreigners to come to our city, buy all the houses, and then keep them empty to make tax-free money through air-bnb.

Fuck the locals, there's tourists that want to enjoy the sun in the summer and arabs that need to invest their petrol dollars.

> keep them empty to make tax-free money through air-bnb.

You don't make a lot of money through AirBnB if you are keeping the place empty.

But you can make more per month than renting, even if it's empty for most of the days.

Yeah, let's force community residents to deal with noise and parties and the increased cost of housing brought by AirBnb while allowing AirBnb and their billionaire investors to make a lot of money while pushing off all the externalities on the communities.

What; you meaning zoning?