Kinja reply list

Read More
baddoggyHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:45pm
“It’s absurd and insulting for a $30 billion company in such an enviable business position to act as if it can do nothing to see to it that its users are not undermining the very stability of municipal housing in cities around the world.”

No it’s not absurd or insulting. No matter how much the company is worth that not it’s job to worry about stability of houses or affordability of houses. That’s the job of the cities themselves.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton Nolanbaddoggy
  6/29/16 1:47pm
  Airbnb has a strong business interest in not creating an enormous political backlash to its business model which is absolutely possible in certain markets, and is clearly already happening in SF. They are too big of a player in the housing market to pretend not to care about affordable housing issues.
  Reply
- Read More
  Sean Brodybaddoggy
  6/29/16 1:52pm
  No matter how much the company is worth that not it’s job to worry about stability of houses or affordability of houses. That’s the job of the cities themselves.
  
  By bringing AirBnb to account for their scofflaw behaviour, the cities are doing their job.
  It’s working.
  Reply
Read More
e30s2kHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 2:06pm
AirBnB has done an excellent job of running a bait and switch operation with their public relations. They continue to talk about the middle class, about how they’re helping everyday people afford their homes by renting a room or their house while they’re away every now and then, etc. And that the big bad government is trying to help the hotel industry by stopping them.

This is absolutely not the case. Even San Franciscans who are hosts and wholeheartedly supported the company through its initial fights with the city are getting sick and tired of the company’s antics constantly using them as a puppet to get their way. The rules currently in place in San Francisco are absolutely in favor of mom and pop renters like this. In fact AirBnB used armies of these people to get the laws written as they are, and they’re very happy with it. But the problem is – these renters that they present as the lifeblood of AirBnB actually isn’t where they get their major business from. It is the illegal landlords – the permanent vacant rentals, which are and absolutely should be illegal especially in a major city with such an acute housing shortage. AirBnB always says X% of their hosts are middle class people! Right, sure – now tell me what % of your REVENUE comes from those casual hosts? What % comes from illegal rentals – entire units that aren’t a primary residence for the host, but one that has been bought by either an individual or corporation with the sole intention of renting it out as a short term rental full time?

This is where the crux of their opposition for this ruling comes from. They absolutely COULD do it, its easy enough and they absolutely have the ability and the information to enforce it. And it actually wouldn’t hurt an overwhelming majority of its “middle class homeowners renting out to make ends meet sometimes” crowd. But this law very directly (and smartly) cracks down on the illegal hosts who have not and cannot register. And AirBnB is scared shitless as a result – at the impact its going to have on its revenues, and that this will set a precedent in other cities (as it absolutely should). I’ve used the service, it’s a great idea – but its gone way, way too far. This first amendment and SCA ruling claims are bullshit – there is absolutely no limiting or censoring of the advertising of the host’s listings themselves. This is purely a requirement that AirBnB themselves ensure they have a registration number for each host they choose to do business with. It’s brilliant and they’re desperate as a result.
Reply
- Read More
  e30s2ke30s2k
  6/29/16 2:23pm
  Group exercise time– here we go! Go on to AirBnB, search for San Francisco, and choose a date range of your liking for an “entire apartment”. How browse through the listings and tell me how many of them look like places that people actually live in (i.e. the mom and pop renters that would be legal given the current law – i.e. these people should be able to get a registration # and all will be good) vs how many of them look like someone checked the boxes on all the items on a Pottery Barn catalogue to run a full time hotel out of (i.e. the listings that always have been and will be expressly illegal per San Francisco law).
  
  Hint – most of the listings are the latter. Up until now the city has tried but mostly not had much luck tackling these illegal listings – because the listings don’t have any names or addresses, and AirBnB refuses to share this information. Enforcement, as much as it is the city’s responsibility, is next to impossible. There are thousands and thousands of these illegal listings in San Francisco alone – the city with the country’s most acute housing shortage. If these don’t get stopped it will only continue – what’s the point of ramping up construction and building a few hundred more units a year, if regular people don’t get to live in them – instead they keep getting bought up and rented out as hotels to tourists? Yes, it is a small factor of the housing shortage – but a factor, and an easy one to say “nope, that’s illegal, stop it” at that.
  
  So AirBnB, screw you. You started off as a good idea but have gone way too far with your greed. The cognitive dissonance amongst your staff thinking that they’re bringing the world together is strong, when in actuality you’re really breaking it into pieces while lining your pockets.
  Reply
- Read More
  finchesghoste30s2k
  6/29/16 2:33pm
  If its your property and you pay your money to own and operate it then you can do what you want with it. If it sits vacant for short-term rentals that is your decision to make. Not your city government’s.
  Reply
Read More
prolapsedtimelapseHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:40pm
Nah, this is a pretty slippery slope issue. If Airbnb is liable for the actions of its members, it guts CDA / Safer Harbor laws. That would in turn mean that a site like Gawker could be help liable for the comments its “members” make as well, where as currently the site is not party to, say, me posting copyright infringing information here.
Reply
- Read More
  Hamilton Nolanprolapsedtimelapse
  6/29/16 1:41pm
  I understand that as a legal argument but I question the legitimacy of equating Airbnb with a pure “platform” like, say, Facebook or Twitter. There are platforms, and then there are straight up businesses, and Airbnb strikes me as the latter.
  
  That said I would never make me a judge.
  Reply
- Read More
  butcherbakertoiletrymakerprolapsedtimelapse
  6/29/16 1:44pm
  Yeah, but money doesn’t change hands when a commenter posts on Gawker. Unless you know something I don’t, in which case, spill it—because I want to sit at home all day in my underwear raking in the millions.
  Reply
Read More
legaltrutherHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:48pm
I’m not familiar with the San Francisco regulation, but does it basically say that in order to rent out your room on AirBnB you have to register and meet all the same requirements that any hotel does? I suspect it’s something along those lines, in which case, of course nobody registers. And customers, unless they’re fucking idiots, don’t expect to stay in a place that’s up to hotel quality when they’re using AirBnB. This is, first and foremost, a ruse to drive AirBnB out - driven in part by the hotel industry, and in part by locals masquerading as affordable housing activists (I say masquerading, because of course those people would never allow a developer to actually build more housing in order to lower prices; but they are always on call if you need someone to bitch about how prices have gotten out of control and the neighborhood just ain't what it used to be).
Reply
- Read More
  dothedewlegaltruther
  6/29/16 1:56pm
  Maybe it is time for the hotel industry to recognize that this is not a passing fad and that their occupancy rates will be permanently depressed and that they need to turn some of their rooms into affordable housing. What the fuck did Conrad Hilton ever do about affordable housing?
  Reply
- Read More
  ╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Bokelegaltruther
  6/29/16 1:58pm
  This is not about maintaining hotel-like requirements. Nice strawman.
  
  http://sf-planning.org/office-short-t…
  Reply
Read More
Wayward ApologyHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:56pm
Personally I would like to see more landlords/HOAs/Co-Ops ban AirBNB. In fact many do, my HOA has banned rentals of less than a month for over 30 years but I would like to see that become more common.

When we got a letter around the time Airbnb was taking off reminding us of this in or condo documents it was a great relief, I don’t want strangers from the internet running around my condo building and I don’t want the doorman or concierge spending a bunch of time guessing who is supposed to be where and with whom.
Reply
- Read More
  Hello_Madam_PresidentWayward Apology
  6/29/16 3:15pm
  I am alarmed at the people who don’t seem to respect the reasons for zoning. When you want to open a business in a residential area, in most places that requires getting neighbors’ permission and all kinds of stuff. I realize this can be stifling but it’s about property value and quality of life and all kinds of shit!
  Reply
- Read More
  corndogHello_Madam_President
  6/29/16 4:11pm
  Yeah, but a renter isn’t necessarily going to treat the neighborhood any better than a vacationing visitor.
  Reply
Read More
festivusaziliHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:52pm
“It is a content-based restriction on advertising rental listings, which is speech.”

It is speech. But commercial speech gets far lower 1st Amendment protection. Like the gov can require it to be truthful. Or make certain disclosures. Or ban it if it advertises prohibited services (like black market rentals).
Reply
- Read More
  Violent Fellowkneesfestivusazili
  6/29/16 2:05pm
  Yeah, I mean it’s speech to roll through a neighborhood at 4 AM in a pickup truck blaring political messages through a loudspeaker. And you can’t do that. And that is political speech too. KnowImsaying?
  Reply
- Read More
  festivusaziliViolent Fellowknees
  6/29/16 2:08pm
  I can’t? Damn. How am I supposed to support the Trump campaign now?
  
  (plus, that’s a time/place/manner restriction, lower standard than content restrictions)
  Reply
Read More
keverdeneHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:49pm
OT, but can we talk about the bigger issue—the Airbnb logo?
Because, um....it is a no.
Reply
- Read More
  Sean Brodykeverdene
  6/29/16 1:56pm
  OT, but can we talk about the bigger issue—the Airbnb logo?
  Because, um....it is a no.
  
  I was just thinking how I don’t even remember the old one now.
  Reply
- Read More
  Braavokeverdene
  6/29/16 2:02pm
  Right? All I see are ballsacks...ballsacks everywhere...
  Reply
Read More
pre-emptive sighHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:51pm
It’s amazing that these companies like airbnb and uber think they’re shit because they avoided regulations in their industries that have developed over decades.

You’re valued at $30b because you have a website that matches 2 groups? Congratulations on monetizing Craigslist. Now sit back and wait for the regulations or the lawsuit torches and pitchforks and watch your value plummet.
Reply
- Read More
  One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighterpre-emptive sigh
  6/29/16 1:56pm
  You didn’t build that. They did.
  Reply
- Read More
  pre-emptive sighOne Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter
  6/29/16 2:01pm
  You’re right, I didn’t think to flagrantly disregard the laws by calling something the ‘sharing economy’ but doing exactly what other people have been doing for centuries. Nor would I ever invest in an phantasm of a company that produces nothing but gobbles up capital to continue to produce nothing.
  
  Doesn’t seem like a sound long term investment.
  
  Reply
Read More
Hello_Madam_PresidentHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 2:34pm
I don’t understand how like, fire and health codes don’t come into play. There are a lot of safety regulations rentals (both long term and hotels) are required to follow. I realize enforcement is an issue, but there is almost no guidance or even scary disclaimer language. If someone dies in a fire in my illegitimate rental, that's a big fucking problem.
Reply
- Read More
  bassguitarheroHello_Madam_President
  6/29/16 5:55pm
  Someone’s dad already died on a tire swing at an AirBnB. I’m not sure of the status of any suit going forward there.
  Reply
- Read More
  Hello_Madam_Presidentbassguitarhero
  6/29/16 7:51pm
  I saw that. Wondering how many more there will be.
  Reply
Read More
toothpetardHamilton Nolan
6/29/16 1:41pm
Enabling landlords to turn vast swaths of neighborhoods into off-the-books hotels is not.

Looking forward to when our landlords, who live in russia, decide to airbnb the place. At least the neighborhood meetings are restricted to property owners, in order to keep the conversation centered around those who give so much to the ‘hood. From their homes in russia and china.
Reply
- Read More
  Yurrrrtoothpetard
  6/29/16 2:06pm
  Our neighborhood has Airbnb’s that are basically brothels, but good luck doing anything about that when Airbnb’s founder pays to get daddy elected to the local city council.
  Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardYurrrr
  6/29/16 2:07pm
  our Thought Leaders have spoken!
  Reply