Otherwise, you're probably SOL. Could try taking her to small claims court, though.

(I like Airbnb but see how fraught it is, too).

It's more like the your renter's insurance company would sue the neighbor's company for a claim. However, since the neighbor was renting out the apartment as an Airbnb property, then their standard renter's insurance was probably invalid at the time. So now your insurance company would sue the neighbor directly and may not be able to pay.

The long term implications are that renter's insurance costs will go up for everyone in that market.

I've long thought that the biggest problem with Airbnb wasn't the tax issue, or even landlords abusing the system and running mini-hotels. It was insurance. I suspect that none of the hosts who aren't physically present (and even some who are) are violating their insurance policy, and if there is a HOA or other sort of shared space, that insurance policy would also be violated.

If hosts had to actually pay the true costs of insurance, the cost savings between traditional hotels and Airbnb would be much smaller. Now, if Airbnb actually offered the insurance to the hosts, or maintained it themselves, that would be something. But that would be fraught with fraud issues over such a wide market.

But insurance isn't a sexy topic...

The cost to the aggrieved neighbor of launching multiple legal actions is proportionately greater since the neighbor's recovery necessarily takes place in arrears and is not supported by a stream of guest rental income. Absent an ability to recover punitive as well as economic damages, the rentier may well find it more profitable to persist.

This leads to an interesting application of the Coase theorem, of course. If you find that your neighbor is renting out on AirBnB and you have a serious anticipation of economic loss, you are in a good position to bring your neighbor to the negotiation table and solicit compensation up front - in other words, to demand your neighbor buy you off for the predictable inconvenience. This idea will seem anathema to many entrepreneurs but it has the economic advantage of predictability, as the long-term economic cost will be the same while the transaction costs may end up being lower.

One of the shortfalls from Airbnb, Uber, and other human to human services is that their initial growth & design comes from early adapter use. I can't provide hard facts but the people who use things earlier tend to be a little smarter and a little saner. This observation is based on what happens to online communities as they expand.

Airbnb has built a system, when used the way it was originally intended, with well meaning hosts and gracious renters everything works great. As it transitions to a mass market product dynamics change. You have people gaming the system, hosting sex parties, attacking you with hammers (bad joke), etc. Government & city regulations have a lot to do with managing the "riff raff." Taxes, revenue, rent, these things matter to a lesser degree than personal safety.

Airbnb, Uber, and all of these other sharing services need to think really hard about this. If you are launching your AirBNB/Uber for X service, and your early adapters are already the mass market, acquired through ad campaigns. Watch the hell out.

If you can contact me, I would love to consider your place among my options. It is very hard to know if it is a "legit" host or a professional one through the site only, let alone find out the acceptance of the neighbors.

When I first heard of AirBnb that was the case I thought when it made the most sense.

If you have a 2-bedroom apartment, one roommate could host while the other goes on vacation. But they can't both be gone at the same time.

And if hotels go out of business, good riddance. If consumers rather pay a bit less and stay in a house or an apartment, why should the regulator want to mess with their preferences?

As of:

>This drives up rents for residents as it reduces supply of long term housing and inflates landlords expectations on what they can charge.

Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge.

The problem is they are secret from the regulators too and aren't following the regulations.

> Take down hotels and build apartment buildings. If as you say the demand is there, the market should take care of it. Although hotels tend to be more space efficient, so new apartment buildings could not be enough to completely offset the price surge.

That isn't how it works. The market doesn't magically fix things when the financial incentive is towards the decision without the "social good" of providing housing to residents. Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage.

Which regulations?

>Harmful externalities are something the market blindly ignores because capital can just ignore the damage.

What harmful externalities apply to this case?

The "secret hotels" are not following residential fire codes, in numerous instances. Which is a danger to themselves and others.

> What harmful externalities apply to this case?

Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/nyregion/poverty-rate-in-c...

20% of NY is below the poverty line. Raising the cost of a basic necessity is really corporate welfare [because it increases costs for the government]. Much like the issue with minimum wage:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w...

You really have 3 choices:

1) Deprive people of basic necessities.

2) Raise taxes on Capital [because Labor can't afford it, they are the one that would be subsidized...] to subsidize the basic necessities for the poor. [Hmm, seems alot of AirBnb folks are trying to dodge taxes...making them share data with the IRS/State Tax boards is nice but that doesn't make money appear out of thin air].

3) Set the rules in such a way that there is enough long term housing stock that upward price pressure is kept in line with inflation and let the market sort the rest of it out.

Now you can argue I'm wrong and there is some magical 4th option [e.g. "Increased spending by consumers/capital due to more economic efficiency from using AirBNB"] the problem with this is, without a study proving this claim you don't really have a leg to stand on.

If this is true, this problem transcends Airbnb. If the building doesn't comply with those does, it doesn't matter what it is being used for.

>Shifting housing supply from long term housing [e.g. apartments with 6+ month leases] to hotels/AirBnB rentals [short term housing], reduces long term housing stock and raises prices for residents.

So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?

They aren't. Regulators are focussed on the externalities associated with short-term tenancy operations in general, which is why they have imposed regulations imposing safety and other constraints on such operations to mitigate the externalities, as well as imposing taxes to internalize the unmitigated externalities by shifting the costs on to the operations benefiting from the activity that produces the externalities.

What you perceive as focus on Airbnb is just the general focus on short-term tenancies being made manifest in a particular way because of a high-visibility group of people flaunting the rules that result from the more general focus on short-term tenancies.

Incorrect. Its based on usage. Using it for short term tenancy has different requirements.

You really didn't read the OP so I'm done talking to you.

> So if hotels produce the same kind of externalities, why are the regulators only focusing on Airbnb?

...because AirBNB's hosts are not playing by the rules intend to curb the problem. For instance, zoning? Hotel taxes? Following fire codes for short term tenant buildings? Etc?

Hotel taxes don't just magically disappear when the government gets them. They are used to fund city services. City services everyone who comes to Airbnb uses and isn't paying for. They are also increasing the risk of damage to city and their neighbors property. Zoning controls the size of the short term housing and commercial property stock. Etc.

Do you really not understand what these things are for?

At this point I'm just taking the downvotes because I think the underlying issue here is...people on HN really don't understand that these things were created for very valid reasons. Oh well.

Airbnb does this already.