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