Air BNB Horror Story

[thickornotatall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/your-money/airbnb-horror-story-points-to-need-for-precautions.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Zman]

I never had any interest in an AirBNB that was a share. I might consider one where I had the whole place to myself but sharing with a stranger: ugh!

[rvwnsd]

I used airbnb once and had a great experience. I rented an entire apartment and the host had great reviews. However, I've also read stories where the host lives in a downstairs unit and consistently pounds on the ceiling or spies on the tenants. It is not outside the realm of possibility that a host could let themselves in with a key and assault the guest or steal their property when they are away.

[Zman]

I used airbnb once and had a great experience. I rented an entire apartment and the host had great reviews.

 

rvwnsd, do you feel you got a good deal compared with a hotel? Of course, saving money isn't the only reason to use AirBNB. But the few times I've searched on there the deals didn't seem that great compared to local hotels. And for the reasons already mentioned, I feel more comfortable booking a hotel.

[rvwnsd]

rvwnsd, do you feel you got a good deal compared with a hotel? Of course, saving money isn't the only reason to use AirBNB. But the few times I've searched on there the deals didn't seem that great compared to local hotels. And for the reasons already mentioned, I feel more comfortable booking a hotel.

 

During that stay I definitely received a good deal. A friend was getting married in New York City the week after Christmas and I decided to go to NYC for Christmas, the wedding, and New years. I rented a lovely flat on the Upper West Side for $150/night. That was a steal compared to a hotel. That was my one and only airbnb stay. I recently priced airbnb for a trip I am currently taking to Chicago and the only rentals that beat hotel rates were un-airconditioned flats. It has been in the high 80's and low 90's all week. There was absolutely no way I would stay in Chicago without AC in August.

[+ dutchmuch]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81VYqeJXAML._SY679_.jpg

 

Same reason I don't take Uber.

[Zman]

rvwnsd, yes that was a great rate for NYC. It'd be hard to find that at a hotel unless it was on the far shore of Staten Island. It was probably also illegal since most airbnb's in NYC are (or at least a violation of a lease or condo rules).

 

That's true here in LA too. Neighborhoods like Venice and Santa Monica are flooded with AirBNB places that are now of the rental market which only makes a tough rental market worse.

 

I have mixed feeling about the "sharing" economy. On one hand I'm glad something like Uber is shaking up the taxi industry. Taxis are pretty badly run as local monopolies in most places in my experience. But on the other hand it seems these companies can just go "nah-nah-nah" to the laws and rules. But one reason they can do that is they are so successful and popular.

[rvwnsd]

...I have mixed feeling about the "sharing" economy. On one hand I'm glad something like Uber is shaking up the taxi industry. Taxis are pretty badly run as local monopolies in most places in my experience. But on the other hand it seems these companies can just go "nah-nah-nah" to the laws and rules. But one reason they can do that is they are so successful and popular.

 

I agree with your point about landlords taking apartments off the traditional rental market and essentially turning apartment buildings into unregulated hotels. Not only does it drive up rental prices, it makes for a potentially unsafe lodging. Hotels are required to have sprinklers, undergo inspections, and follow fair lodging laws while airbnb accommodations are not required to do any of those things.

 

You might remember that I am the one who said the "sharing economy" isn't because nothing is being "shared." I've used uber as a last resort and airbnb the one time.

[Zman]

Yes, well said.

 

Getting back to the OP. I suppose there are always going to be horror stories. There are plenty about this particular hobby those of us on this board share. And we seem to deal this fact much the same as AirBNB customers: we look for a good reputation from reviews, we try to develop street smarts to weed out the bad actors, and we hope we have good luck . I think the same is true for choosing a hotel for that matter.

[+ SundayZip]

My take on companies like AirBNB and Uber, is not that they are thumbing their noses at the laws and regulations. It's more that laws and regulations were written for companies and service providers that operate with a more traditional business model. It's now unclear how these laws and regulations apply (who's accountable, who's liable, who's an employee vs a contractor, who's actually the primary service provider?) Rather that assume that AirBNB, Uber and the like are bad news and should be avoided, I would hope that they would be supported and that laws and regulations adapt. My fear is that the more traditional companies will use money and political clout to squash innovation that comes with the new business models.

[rvwnsd]

My take on companies like AirBNB and Uber, is not that they are thumbing their noses at the laws and regulations. It's more that laws and regulations were written for companies and service providers that operate with a more traditional business model. It's now unclear how these laws and regulations apply (who's accountable, who's liable, who's an employee vs a contractor, who's actually the primary service provider?) ...

 

All of the questions are easily answerable by hiring legal, regulatory compliance, and risk management specialists to interpret laws and determine how to structure a business model that operates within them. However, neither airbnb nor uber did that. Instead, they plowed forward and then tried to convince the public that laws did not apply to them.

 

Rather that assume that AirBNB, Uber and the like are bad news and should be avoided, I would hope that they would be supported and that laws and regulations adapt. ...

 

I would prefer that airbnb and uber adapt to existing laws and regulations.

 

My fear is that the more traditional companies will use money and political clout to squash innovation that comes with the new business models.

 

I see no difference between what you just described and airbnb and uber using venture capital funding to change fair housing and consumer protection laws to suit themselves.

[+ SundayZip]

All of the questions are easily answerable....

 

Ooops. My mistake. Thanks for letting me know.

[+ quoththeraven]

The problem, from the point of view of AirBnB and Uber, is that their business model does not work within existing laws. (Btw, as I understand it, the only legit AirBnB in NYC is to rent a room in an occupied apartment or home. Everything else is violates housing law.) It's possible to say existing law didn't contemplate them or the conditions that make them possible, but it's equally true that AirBnB and Uber pose, or have the potential to pose, all the problems that the laws they violate were intended to prevent.

 

I've expressed some harsh opinions about them in the past. It's not that thir product or service is intrinsically bad. It's that they don't fit well within regulations intended to protect the public that also serve to keep costs high. Lack of regulation can produce better, more nimble service. It can (and has) also produced discrimination against the disabled, opportunities for sexual assault, and greater crowding in already busy buildings.

[Epigonos]

The taxi and hotel/motel industries have only themselves to blame for the development of companies like Uber and AirBnB.

A number of years ago when I used to fly up to San Francisco to visit Steven Kesslar I would fly in to Oakland Airport NOT SFO. From the airport I would hop a shuttle to the local BART station and then ride into town. The reason was that the San Francisco taxi companies had successfully lobbied the local politicians (prostitutes) in order to prevent BART from entering the airport. That situation has since been remedied and BART now does serve SFO. However, several years ago in Los Angeles when a Metro Link line was built paralleling the 105 Freeway from Norwalk to LAX the taxi companies managed to prevent the line from entering the airport. To this day if you use the line you have to be shuttled from the final station into the airport. The taxi companies are screaming bloody murder and are trying to get our local politicians (prostitutes) to pass an ordinance preventing Uber driver from pick up and dropping off passengers in LAX.

Now as far as hotels and motels are concerned – their rates have skyrocketed over the last few years. Not only have nightly rates increased with many of the major chains but they have added an astronomical number of new fees and charges. Overnight parking rates have gone through the roof and even rinky-dink motels are charging absurd “resort fee” which sometimes can double the cost of the room.

The one fun aspect of this whole thing is watching our local politicians (prostitutes) squirm. They are between a rock and a hard place and are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They would love to placate the local taxi and hotel/motel groups in order to keep the campaign donations rolling in but they also need the voters to get re-elected and thus far it appears that the voters NO NOT want the operations of AirBnB and Uber restricted.

[+ SundayZip]

Hi QTR, I suspect that our opinions on Uber and AirBNB are closer than you might think at first glance. I agree that their business model does not work within all existing laws. I also agree with your position about having regulations to protect the public even though they sometimes increase cost. If we do have a difference of opinion, it might (??) be regarding how far these companies should be allowed to stretch the limits of existing law and how often existing law should be interpreted or adapted. It may boil down to finding the right balance between supporting innovative ways of doing business by changing some laws and regulations (especially when regulations are really there just to protect older, established service providers) and sticking with more traditional business models, service providers and existing laws and regulations.

[+ quoththeraven]

Hi QTR, I suspect that our opinions on Uber and AirBNB are closer than you might think at first glance. I agree that their business model does not work within all existing laws. I also agree with your position about having regulations to protect the public even though they sometimes increase cost. If we do have a difference of opinion, it might (??) be regarding how far these companies should be allowed to stretch the limits of existing law and how often existing law should be interpreted or adapted. It may boil down to finding the right balance between supporting innovative ways of doing business by changing some laws and regulations (especially when regulations are really there just to protect older, established service providers) and sticking with more traditional business models, service providers and existing laws and regulations.

 

What got my goat was the implication (not necessarily yours) that they could fit within existing law and regulations with a little flexibility. In many cases, that's not true. I think Uber especially is underpricing (i.e, nor charging enough to reflect actual liability risks to Uber and very real risk drivers should be considered employees). That's risky for users, investors and the company.

 

I am worried that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater in the process of modifying laws to accommodate these businesses. It's not as though they don't have money to throw around too.

[rvwnsd]

What got my goat was the implication (not necessarily yours) that they could fit within existing law and regulations with a little flexibility. In many cases, that's not true. I think Uber especially is underpricing (i.e, nor charging enough to reflect actual liability risks to Uber and very real risk drivers should be considered employees). That's risky for users, investors and the company.

 

I am worried that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater in the process of modifying laws to accommodate these businesses. It's not as though they don't have money to throw around too.

 

Uber has and continues to throw around VC money in an attempt to change laws to suit itself. In addition, its business model does not include the concept of "turning a profit," as described in the following article from the Los Angeles Times:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thedownload-20150811-story.html

 

Another side-effect of the business model is that the independent contractors aren't trained, aren't required to keep regular hours, and can't answer basic questions about the service they provide, as described in another LA Times article:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-contractors-to-employees-20150815-story.html