I got to experience the opposite side of the equation. I rented a 6 bedroom house in Austin to house my family during my wedding. There was an ominous note left on the fridge where the owner explained that the neighbors are hostile and will call the cops after 10pm if they hear any noise at all. Later in the day when my mom was out playing in the backyard with the grandkids, she got yelled at by the neighbors with warnings of calling the cops later that night.

Honestly I just wanted everything to go smoothly since I was getting married, but man, I felt sleazy housing my family in a hostile environment. And you know what, I can't really blame the neighbors at all. This was my first and last experience with Airbnb. It just felt dirty to be apart of such neighborhood hostilitly.

Interesting perspective. I've done AirBnB but only ever in single-family homes in jurisdictions where it's not illegal.

But if I rented a unit and it turned out that the unit was actually not legal to rent, and even more-so if the neighbors are hostile, why PAY for it? Sounds like a great basis for contesting the charge.

I bought a condo near a sporting/concert center and I live though hell during summer because my neighbors rent out their condos to concert going college kids on AirBnB.

I've written to my alderman, complained to the city with listings on AirBnb. Nothing. No response.

It would be a dream come true for me someone prosecutes AirBnb and puts the founders behind bars.

If you have an HOA, you should review the bylaws, etc. If the rentals you describe appear to be in violation, it might be worth speaking with an attorney about the possibility of a selective enforcement action.

Seconded. They're almost always in violation because mortgage underwriters don't like high numbers of rentals and they certainly wouldn't like any <30-day rentals. So standard HOA docs forbid all short-term rentals and often require jumping through hoops for 1-year rentals.

My HOA board was ready to put a lien on someone's condo because their dog frequently pooped in the common areas. HOA management companies issue liens with regularity and it would certainly force the owner to take action. I'd recommend attending the next board meeting an appealing directly to the HOA chair.

>It would be a dream come true for me someone prosecutes AirBnb and puts the founders behind bars.

What have they done wrong? Made it easier for people to share living space? God forbid people make tools that make travel easier and more accessible.

AirBnB violates NY's illegal hotel law (e.g. http://www.scribd.com/doc/142650911/Decision-and-Order-for-N...). AirBnB actively promotes in New York (they have been actively airing ads on local TV) and made no effort (at least, when the issue first flared up) to make users aware of the relevant laws.

OK, so they broke NYC law. I probably do that 25 times a day. So does everyone else. Did they do anything morally wrong? I mean the developers, not the people renting their apartments.

These are not victimless crimes, the neighbors are the victims, and AirBnb is willfully facilitating illegal and antisocial behavior. That's plainly immoral.

Renting your residence to vacationers is antisocial now. Ok.

I have to wonder what proportion of Airbnb's transactions ever cause any kind of disturbance to anyone. If it's the rule rather than the exception that "vacationers" turn out to be party animals who tear up the place, it's surprising that tenants in prosocial environments would even continue to take that risk.

Let me clarify... the noise is one thing, the constant flow of people another, and the issue of not feeling/being secure yet another (and not the least). Add to that the effects it has on rents and available apartments, and you might see my point that regulation of illegal short-term sublets by tenants in an apartment building is indeed in need of regulation.

When I was an apartment dweller, the noise, constant flow of people, and feeling of insecurity (and silverfish) went with the territory because that's the type of place I could afford. If I had been in a nice, quiet apartment with pleasant neighbors, I would have been wary of being evicted for violating the lease unless the risk of my "guests" causing a problem was very low.

That's why I have to wonder what the real situation is. I see a few complaints about disturbances with nothing being done by the landlord (which is what I'd expect at my old slum apartment), but nobody complaining about being evicted for using Airbnb (which is what I'd expect if a tenant were to turn a nice apartment building into a party hotel, as some complainers insinuate).

In any case, this seems like a problem that already has a resolution: Evict people for subletting if the contract prohibits it, regardless of whether the customers were found on a web site or in the back alley.

Is the guy running a crack house doing anything morally wrong if he isn't selling crack himself - simply taking a cut from those that are?

I don't mind a reasoned argument, but willful ignorance of viewpoints you don't like is an embarrassingly bad approach. It's transparently dumb.

>willful ignorance of viewpoints you don't like

Maybe it's not willful, and that's why I'm asking? Would you care to help alleviate my ignorance?

FWIW, I've actually heard a lot of viewpoints against AirBnB; I just think they're all poorly reasoned.

> Would you care to help alleviate my ignorance?

People don't want to be regularly woken by strangers in their building.

Well unfortunately, that happens in any apartment building. It's not specific to AirBnB. Anything else?

If it isn't willful, then you need to demonstrate that that you're not totally ignorant of the concerns people have. Educating yourself isn't our job; it's yours.

>Made it easier for people to share living space?

Did you read the article?

> Having lived in a BK building where at least 25% (4 out of 16) of the tenants rented out their apt. on AirBnB with regular frequency, I can't wait for this to be addressed once and for all...

I didn't think AirBnB was a thing in Bangkok at all!?

BK also refers to brooklyn

Pardon my arrogance :-)

BK meaning Brooklyn definitely completely changes the way I read your post :)

To me, BK = either Burger King or Bad Kissingen (a town in Germany).

:-)

use something like http://www.unikey.com/ and then you can easily revoke/disable keys

It's not his apartment or building. He cannot force the building owner to replace the main entrance's lock.

whooosh right over the head

>The lease specifically forbade short-term subletting.

Then it sounds like your lease agreement isn't being enforced. That's a landlord problem, not a legal problem.

>Glad regulation is in the pipeline.

Why? So that all of us who use AirBnB have no options left? I know I can't afford travel without it.

How about instead of trying to ham-fist legal solutions to minor problems, you just get your landlord to enforce the lease agreement that already bans AirBnB renting?

It's a landlord problem if it happens in one place. If it's happening all over the place and is facilitated by a single entity or a small number of entities, it certainly is a problem that will end up getting solved by legislation.

If AirBnB were serious about legal compliance, there are plenty of tools they could make. Any developer here could suggest several, I'm sure. But they're intentionally sailing very close to the wind. They've done well by it so far, but I could imagine this strategy biting them in the ass if they push it too far. A couple of spectacular failures yielding some dramatically written articles would be enough to generate a lot of public outrage.

> If AirBnB were serious about legal compliance, there are plenty of tools they could make

If AirBnB were serious about legal compliance, 100 copy cat sites will sprout trying to take a piece of its pie. You can't stop it. It's like Napster.

I always wondered why, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7924005 below gives a good reason why (summary: tenants who rent out via AirBnB can afford bigger rent increases).

It's a combination landlord (lease) and legal problem. In NYC short term leases are explicitly not allowed. Also note, as others have below, that it is very difficult to evict someone in New York.

Glad because just 4 apts. in the building ruined it for the rest of us. I don't care about your travel plans, I care about my quality of life.

Nothing ham-fisted about it and I definitely wouldn't call the mediam rent increases in BK a minor problem - http://gothamist.com/2014/04/04/brooklyn_rents_cant_stop_won...

Maybe people don't care if you can't afford the price of something. It's not everyone else's responsibility to ensure your entitlement to travel on your limited budget. Stay home and make something of it instead of vomiting in everyone else's hallways. We pay the rents and mortgages for these places and AirBnb customers come and crap on it.

And why should it have to be incumbent upon everyone else to enforce rules? What the f$*&? The more I hear of you the more I agree that regulations can't come fast or hard enough.

There are people who have actually lived and invest in these places. Now, there's a whole "disruptive" community thinking because they have a phone with an app, they should be able to help transfer the value of someone else's life and homes into the pockets of AirBnb's founders? Let me catch your tears in this jar so I can savor them.

You have no options without AirBnB? What about:

http://www.priceline.com/hotels/

http://www.expedia.com/Hotels

http://www.travelocity.com/Hotels

http://www.hipmunk.com/hotels-search

http://www.kayak.com/hotels

http://www.trivago.com/?

http://www.orbitz.com/hotels/

http://www.bookingbuddy.com/hotel.php

http://bookit.com/hotels/?tripType=hotel

?

Not all of us can afford hotels. AirBnB generally has options several times cheaper, well within the range of e.g. students.

If you cant afford a hotel how are you paying for the rest of the trip. Im a graduate student and I can afford to travel and pay for a decent hotel. If you can't you shouldn't be traveling and you shouldn't expect others to put up with poor situations because you want a cheap place to stay.

Here is a brilliant idea. How about not traveling if you can't afford it.

How do you go about getting a landlord to enforce a lease agreement? As long as the landlord is getting paid on time and the place isn't destroyed, he probably doesn't care. This seems like a textbook example of an externality that's only solvable by regulation, or by more strictly enforcing any city laws that require landlords to forbid short term sublets.

>How do you go about getting a landlord to enforce a lease agreement?

Uh, ask them? If they refuse, just threatening them with a court case will probably do the job. They are legally obligated to uphold their end of your lease agreement.

>This seems like a textbook example of an externality that's only solvable by regulation

Again, why? It's covered under existing laws. If that doesn't do it, why do you think more laws will?

> Uh, ask them? If they refuse, just threatening them with a court case will probably do the job. They are legally obligated to uphold their end of your lease agreement.

That is not correct.

   Let L = the landlord,
       R = the tenant who is renting out his apartment,
       T = the tenant who is being annoyed by the
           problems R's sub-renters are causing

You are proposing that T sue L for not enforcing a term in R's lease against R. R does not wish to have this term enforced.

The lease agreement being violated (at least as far as the term that prohibits sub-renting the apartment goes) is the one between L and R, not the one between L and T. T would not have standing to sue since T is not a party to the contract between L and R.

In NYC, at least, it's also a legal problem. Short-term rentals (even of property that you own) are illegal under city law. The law would consider the hosts to be:

- Running illegal hotels in buildings that are not zoned for commercial use.

- Running a business without a valid business permit.

- Failing to pay the hotel tax and other business taxes.

- Violating fire regulations that govern hotels and other commercial property.

If your rent is $40 a day and AirBnb guests are paying $80 a day don't they deserve to be there more than you? I don't buy the "I was there first" or "but zoning" arguments.

Besides, I've lived in private room in a hostel in a developing country for the last three months and haven't experienced any of these problems. I find it hard to believe the average apartment building with AirBnB units would be worse.

> The lease specifically forbade short-term subletting [...]

> [...] don't they deserve to be there more than you?

Nope. In fact, they don't deserve to be there at all if they're violating the contract the tenants signed with the owner.

If it wasn't for the zoning laws and the ban on short term rentals, the landlord would be doing it himself and there would be no such clause.

I'm just saying it's totally unfair that someone who lives in NY should pay considerably less for housing than someone visiting and since the city isn't willing to do something to fix that, this black market has popped up to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity.

> I'm just saying it's totally unfair that someone who lives in NY should pay considerably less for housing than someone visiting

People who live there are in the market for long term housing. People visiting are in the market for short term housing. Comparing this is kind of ridiculous, because they serve people with quite different needs.

The product (a place to sleep) is the same and there's no reason for one type of person to pay more than the other besides government interference.

This is the mirror of taxis vs owning a car. There is no good reason for it to cost so much more to take a taxi than to get a ride from some guy with a car besides government regulation.

As soon as you ignore that regulation you get products that everyone loves except the people who were benefiting under the old unfair system. In the taxi case it's people who were charging above market rates for transportation. In this case, it's people paying below market rates to live in NYC.

That's self-evidently false. Here are two reasons why, out of presumably many:

Long-term renters make up-front commitments. They are "buying in bulk", which reduces the inventory risk for the landlord. A hotelier, on the other hand, has to set prices to account for vacancy rates, and for the risk that their vacancy rate estimation is going to be wrong.

Long-term renters are self-serve customers. Short-term renters depart after a few days, leaving the room they leased uninhabitable. Not only does it cost money to reset and restock a room after a guest leaves, but to do so involves retaining staff, which introduces all the expense of headcount.

All of that is true and is why an AirBnb costs more than renting an apartment. However, the cost difference between an AirBnb and a comparable hotel room is all regulation.

Without the regulation, it would be unprofitable to sublease a single apartment on AirBnb as you'd be unable to compete with people who can run a whole building at scale with dedicated maid service etc.

No, you've oversimplified again. Many whole-home Airbnb rentals --- most, if the narrative of the site is to believed --- are owner-occupied. They don't have the inventory risk problem. A hotel is an investment that must make some minimum return, or else go out of business.

I had the impression that most AirBnbs in NYC were not owner-occupied but full-time AirBnbs and that's what people were complaining about.

Anyways if you improve the legal alternatives and the margins get low enough I think a lot of the owner-occupied ones will simply give up. Right now it's so insanely profitable that it's well worth the work and inconveniences (and legal risk!) even for middle class people.

"The product (a place to sleep) is the same"

The product is not the same its "a place to sleep" vs "a place to live" and they are very very different.