Airbnb fights back against Boston!
China, ME · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes
Airbnb fights back against Boston!
Most Popular Reply
Lender · CA · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 10k+ votes
7yOriginally posted by @Thomas S.:
The argument that the government is taking away home owners rights is BS. If the owner does not live full time in the property he is not a home owner. If investors are not allowed to do what they want they don't invest. They go else where or invest in something else. No crime no fowl.
That seems like a bizarre standard. if I own a car that I do not commute to work in on a daily basis, does this mean that I do not own this car?
100 Replies
- Branson, MO · Member since 2015 · 145 posts · 96 votes7y
Actually, this does not strike me as AirBNB anything
"...The City of Boston recently enacted regulations that severely restrict property owners from renting out their homes by the night, unless the owner lives in the unit - a move aimed squarely at Airbnb...."
If anything, this is a VRBO conundrum.
AirBNB is synonymous with "Crash in my dipsy dumpster and bring all your frat buddies"
According to what you posted, all is fine if the owner is there while the sharing occurs.
VRBO OTOH is more upscale and works with whole home and as such will be most directly affected.
But you are right, government overreach is hitting a fever pitch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA - China, ME · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
@Michael Kugler Yikes! Sounds like somebody licked all the red off your candy this morning!
I only mentioned Airbnb because:
1. I live in the Boston area and Airbnb was mentioned in every news story leading up to and following the passing of the new regulations, and
2. It’s Airbnb who is suing the city.
No insult intended to VRBO.
- New York, NY · Member since 2018 · 7 posts · 8 votes7y
It has been empirically shown that short-term rentals like AirBNB lead to an increase in rent prices for other residents, so AirBNB is actually harming other residents. If you think about it, it makes sense since the way it usually works is that landlords realize they can make more money on a short term rental than a long term rental, which effectively reduces the supply of long term rentals, and if demand stays constant then basic economics says rent prices will rise. The people who benefit from the laws are landlords, AirBNB, and the people using the short term rentals (typically tourists in a place like Boston). The city is rationally protecting its citizens, most of whom bear the costs of legalizing short term rentals, over the interests of the landlords, AirBNB-type companies and tourists.
I think AirBNB makes more sense in vacation communities or areas that don't have a problem with sky-high rents. If landlords are effectively running hotels, I don't think they should be surprised if they start to get regulated like hotels.
- Real Estate Professional · West Palm Beach, FL · Member since 2012 · 23k+ posts · 13k+ votes7y
Well, if they're attacking it just on the "...requiring nome sharing platforms to property...", it doesn't sound good for STR's....they're not even saying the ban itself is unlawful.
- Irvine, CA · Member since 2016 · 545 posts · 614 votes7y
@Charlie MacPherson These types of bans are taking place all over the US in major metropolitan areas. At the core of the issue is you have a highly regulated licensed and taxed Hospitality industry losing business to the unlicensed, non-regulated, everyday people renting a property to earn extra income and operating in a hospitality capacity without having to pay their industry standard cost of doing business or having to abide by the same regulations, taxes, licensing, etc.
When I've looked at the legislation for the cities/counties where I have properties, it's all the same, the municipalities are looking to collect missed revenue for all of the business licenses not being issued and paying a license fee, the various regulation authorities not fining vendors who are out of compliance, or enforcing codes, additional taxes assessed for the hospitality industry not assessed to the every day person.
@Wayne Brooks you will not find any lawsuit from the STR platforms claiming illegality, what they are protesting is how the municipalities are holding them accountable for the everyday persons actions of running an unlicensed business or misclassified business for those with a business but not a hospitality business entity.
An example of this is in one municipality they allow a maximum of 90 days per year of use on STR's, if a home owner rents more than 90 days it's considered a hospitality business and required to operate like one with all the regulation, taxes, etc.. AirBNB must report it's homeowner/landlords renter information to ensure compliance, AirBnB doesn't want to do this because they have to limit the number of rentals a property can have, or pay the fine for going over the 90 days per year.
- Architect · Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2018 · 843 posts · 907 votes7y
Originally posted by @Robert B.:
It has been empirically shown that short-term rentals like AirBNB lead to an increase in rent prices for other residents, so AirBNB is actually harming other residents. If you think about it, it makes sense since the way it usually works is that landlords realize they can make more money on a short term rental than a long term rental, which effectively reduces the supply of long term rentals, and if demand stays constant then basic economics says rent prices will rise. The people who benefit from the laws are landlords, AirBNB, and the people using the short term rentals (typically tourists in a place like Boston). The city is rationally protecting its citizens, most of whom bear the costs of legalizing short term rentals, over the interests of the landlords, AirBNB-type companies and tourists.
I think AirBNB makes more sense in vacation communities or areas that don't have a problem with sky-high rents. If landlords are effectively running hotels, I don't think they should be surprised if they start to get regulated like hotels.
I'm sorry but the city is not thinking of its citizens first. Its thinking about the tax dollars it losing and having to hear how the big hotel companies are losing money. Even though you're not wrong with your statement about residence losing out on the possible number long term rentals available its really not that big of a lose. Most of the lose is going to be in SFR and condos and not so much in MF. Even then most the people the use AirBnB are people who own only a couple units not the big companies that own hundreds or thousands of units. Though I'm sure they dip into the STR with some properties.
Your statement "I think AirBNB makes more sense in vacation communities or areas that don't have a problem with sky-high rents." is basically asking for the slow death of STR. Have you ever live in or near a vacation community? Sky-high rent is always a problem and affordable SFR are a problem too. Many vacation communities are on the same path as the bigger cities and many of those have already enacted straight up bans on STR. The town near me has done exactly this. Actual old school BnB excluded but restricted to 4 rooms max and they still have the hospitality tax that large hotels do.
With all that said though I think the un-restrictiveness of the AirBnB type STR is a problem. Both from the liability stand point and taxes. I dont think that STR should be taxed at the same level as hotels though. They really are different things. I read on example of a city coming up with a law where the owner has to apply for a yearly licence and inspections every so many years (I forgot all the exact numbers...i'll see if i can find the article). I'm not opposed to something like this.
- Developer · Boston, MA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 137 votes7y
As someone who has been following this closely not only because I live in Boston, but because I feel like this a great test case for future cities to fight back against and have these "rental" companies counter right back. Couple of points that have not been discussed that Boston is using as a crutch of the case;
1) Boston is having an identity crisis with with regards to affordable housing or even an affordable rental market. There is not any, and it does not know who to blame for it. The city keeps putting the onus of the developers expecting them to create more inventory, but the developers find more creative loopholes and other ways of circumnavigating these restrictions that there is a wonder why they even exist in the first place. So who does the city look to blame? Companies like AirBnB. The fallacy is that landlords are putting their properties on the short term market to make more money than putting on the regular market for renters.
2) The hotel lobby is screaming that the tax rate for hotels is 14.5%- yes that is ridiculously high and larger AirBnB especially in areas like South Boston and in Back Bay are taking larger clusters away from the hotel demand in the city. Again another fallacy here in that the clientele that books an Airbnb or VBRO is not going to consider booking a hotel so it is not pulling from the same pool of demand. Boston already suffers from pathetically low yearly occupancy rates in its hotel business, city wide the average is in the high 70% for the year which compared to other major cities is not bad but it is not great. Look at rates in Boston starting next week through February and see low low rates. Nobody wants to deal with our winters. It looked like the first compromise to stave off this new restrictions was to enforce Airbnbs to pay the same tax that hotels were paying for stays longer than two nights in duration, and many were onboard with that with the belief that number is actually a lot smaller than people were expecting it to be, but ultimately that measure never passed.
I give Airbnb credit because they are saying in the lawsuit that Boston is trying to shift the blame for some its issues to someone or something else, and what better that a new "tech" company that solves a problem people have and also creates an alternative for people. I will be really curious to see how this plays out over the next couple of months. I think it is a prayer that AirBnB is throwing out there hoping something sticks, but also raises the discussion about private enterprise with regards to what a landlord is entitled to do with their property.
- China, ME · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
@Robert B. I think that property owners of any description need to rigidly defend private property rights.
I get that local residents might be priced out of the market, but the solution is for them to move to an area that they can afford.
There is no such thing as a basic human right to live in the city of Boston.
I might like to live in a nice Beacon Hill condo, but seeing as how the average list price is $3.679 million, I can't. I moved to a place I could afford, because I don't have a right to force condo owners to reduce their home prices to a level that I can afford.
You cannot rightfully force a property owner to give up his private property rights without proper compensation. Doing so is inherently unjust.
@Ray Johnson The internet has disintermediated countless businesses. How many brick & mortar travel agencies do you see now, as compared to pre-internet days? How's Sears doing after getting gutted by Amazon? Realtors like me have seen Zillow, Trulia and Realtor.com take over the relationship between agent and client.
When I bought my "pack & ship" retail store in 2004, we were shipping ~35 packages per day and making $5.00 - $50.00 on on each. We'd get 2-3 pre-paid returns, making $0.80 per package.
When I sold it in 2015, those numbers were exactly reversed. The internet with it's "click & ship" and "print your pwn shipping label" just about put us out of business. What's the solution? Tell people they can't print their own shipping labels? Outlaw Stamps.com?
No. Like the smart buggy whip manufacturers who became carburetor builders, realizing that they were in the vehicle acceleration business, we adapt. We don't force regulations that require cars to be powered by horses.
- 7yLuke CarlPro MemberRental Property Investor · Tennessee Florida · Member since 2016 · 4k+ posts · 5k+ votesAs a host with over 1000 5 star reviews, I just wish AirBnB would take my side. Ever. As opposed to taking the side of a guest with zero reviews. Every time. **Nothing to do with Boston
- Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes7y
My vote is for Boston, I hope they win.
Why, because I never want to see my neighbour move out and rent out his home and I have to put up with a revolving door of strangers like living next door to a brothel.
At least if my good neighbour is forced to be there to monitor the situation I can speak to him about any concerns that arise. Last thing I want to see is some a-hole investor buying up homes around me and turn my community into hotel row.
The argument that the government is taking away home owners rights is BS. If the owner does not live full time in the property he is not a home owner. If investors are not allowed to do what they want they don't invest. They go else where or invest in something else. No crime no fowl.
- Lender · CA · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 10k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Thomas S.:
The argument that the government is taking away home owners rights is BS. If the owner does not live full time in the property he is not a home owner. If investors are not allowed to do what they want they don't invest. They go else where or invest in something else. No crime no fowl.
That seems like a bizarre standard. if I own a car that I do not commute to work in on a daily basis, does this mean that I do not own this car?
- Architect · Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2018 · 843 posts · 907 votes7y
Originally posted by @Thomas S.:
If the owner does not live full time in the property he is not a home owner. If investors are not allowed to do what they want they don't invest.
Theres so much wrong with these two sentences...
I take it you never want to own a second home in another city? Be that for a dedicated vacation home or otherwise. So everyone that owns multiple homes either has the option of long term rentals or letting it sit empty 99% of the year? Ya, sound logic. What about all the older people that are snow birds. Live in the north during the summer and south in the winter? They don't live anywhere full time. Are you wanting to completely locking them out of having additional income? What about everyone that owns a dozen houses for rental but decides to rent a condo/apartment in the city because its close to work....I guess they are not a home owner either.
You, and everyone here, has to abide by existing laws and building codes and we don't get to do what ever we want. I guess that make none of us investors.I get that the wild west of the AirBnB of the last couple years needs some reeling in. I'm not against bringing in some regulatory laws here, but blanket statements like yours that are based on hyped up speculation and fueled my your nightmares doesn't help anyone. Not to mention there is absolutely zero facts that anything you said would happen. The fact is the AirBnB is (has) changing how people view vacation rentals, be that hotels or other STR, and it not going back to the way it was where everyone stayed in only hotels. Its not like this concept of renting a house is new, its just the platform to find and rent them has become 100x easier. The millennial generation is whats driving this and its here to stay. Fighting this off like the horse & buggy industry did when the first cars were invented is the wrong mentality. Excepting that new change is on the horizon and learning to work with it and find compromises that work for everyone is going to work much better and much smoother.
- China, ME · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
@Thomas S. This isn't Canada.
In our country, we have private property rights that are not to be superseded by public opinion or the whining classes of low income renters. (unless they can overwhelm politicians with their whining - and sadly, politicians are more interested in votes than justice)
Here, in the land of the free, if you don't like what your neighbor wants to do with his property, you are free to buy it or to move. You should not be able to revoke his private property rights without just compensation.
Trying to force a change in zoning laws to restrict those basic human rights to suit your personal tastes is the ultimate display of personal greed.
PS - brothels are illegal here. I don't know about Ontario, but they are here. That's not a concern in Boston.
PPS - if a person owns a home, he is by any definition in the English language, a homeowner. Not necessarily a resident, but he is still a homeowner.
I would LOVE to hear your reasoning that these kinds of regulations aren't taking away private property rights.
- Real Estate Investor · Williamson County, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 961 votes7y@Charlie MacPherson Investors of str’s run a business in a residential neighborhood. And that business is not providing a residence; it is providing a service akin to a hotel. Most neighborhoods let the people who live there set up cottage industries...make stuff in the garage, cut hair, run a daycare, smoke meat for a catering. But they don’t allow a business to buy a residential house and open an art gallery, beauty shop or repar shop. The owners occupied str is different from the investor owned full-time str.
- Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2016 · 338 posts · 444 votes7y
@Charlie MacPherson, This drama has already played out in San Francisco, and in the end AirBnb acquiesced to the demands of the city. The lawsuit is just to try and bring some negotiating leverage to the table. Maybe they can prevail in an east coast court? But I doubt it.
In terms of the requirement for owners to live in the unit, AirBnb has always maintained that most of their hosts do that anyways to "make ends meet", so it weakens their argument on that point.
- Investor · The worst town to live in, KS · Member since 2016 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Marian Smith:
@Charlie MacPherson Investors of str’s run a business in a residential neighborhood. And that business is not providing a residence; it is providing a service akin to a hotel. Most neighborhoods let the people who live there set up cottage industries...make stuff in the garage, cut hair, run a daycare, smoke meat for a catering. But they don’t allow a business to buy a residential house and open an art gallery, beauty shop or repar shop. The owners occupied str is different from the investor owned full-time str.You may or may not be correct, but an art gallery, beauty shop etc is going to have traffic there all day. Non resident people from the house are going to frequent it. If it is a STR, only the tenants of the house will be there. In my case, they wake up at 5:30 am, leave at 6:30 am. Come home around 5:30 or later, take a shower, eat, sleep repeat.
- China, ME · Member since 2014 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
@Marian Smith The facts are still the same.
These regulations seek to deny the owners of their own private property the right to use it as they see fit.
If they were putting a scrap metal yard or a pig farm in the midst of a residential neighborhood, you might have a valid point. In that case, that property owner would have a meaningful negative impact on the abutters.
Having different people sleep in a particular bed each night simply doesn't rise to that level.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you have the right to deny a homeowner the basic right to do with his property as he sees fit.
This is still a free country. Let's keep it that way.
- Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes7y
The thing is - AirBnB et al will end up destroying what their guests like about each location.
I am all for making money - i am not all for investors destroying the fabric of a city or neighboorhoods just for a good ROI
Nobody has a right to blatant exploitation and i find it funny that folks are screaming "socialism" when 10 years ago no one even knew any of this STR stuff was possible.
I have watched the gentrification of SF, Oakland and other areas. Heck I was born and raised here, i make decent money and I cant afford it here.
I hope that localities get smart and limit STRs to help stabalize housing. And as always I hope people learn to actually care about the people their profiting affects.
- Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes7y
Moderator Note: Keep the socialism name calling, trolling, and anything on left v right out of the discussion. Political discussions are not allowed. Discussion of applicable laws and how they affect real eatate investors in a non partisan way is. Trolling is also not allowed.
District Invest Group545 Reviews - Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Charlie MacPherson:
@Thomas S. This isn't Canada.
I would LOVE to hear your reasoning that these kinds of regulations aren't taking away private property rights.
I am not the best debator out there , but why would your right to rent out rooms at high prices supercede the right of the collective “we” of society ? Especially since just 10 years ago you never knew anything about short term rentals ala airbnb?
We have a similar, but different discussion going on with Pot. Pot farmers are coming in, buying land and destroying the value of the neighboorhood due to smell and crime. The Pot folks use the same type of argument as used above
I guess I think there should be balance. We need all levels of income earners to keep areas vibrant. And as landlords and investors, it seems we have an interest in keeping areas desirable and rentable.
( hoping this comment stays within community rules)
- Investor / Broker · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2016 · 665 posts · 1k+ votes7y
I had the pleasure of buying a property with an illegal Hair styling saloon in 2 of the floors of a 4 story brownstone in Brooklyn NYC on a residential street.
The Owner of the Saloon, in court, professed that it was NOT illegal and that she had a "Business License."
HOWEVER, while she had a "Business License" to practice Hair Styling, she did not have a "Shop License" which would only have been Granted to her if the property she was using was zoned and renovated with the appropriate equipment.
This person made the same argument that she has the right to use the apt as she sees fit.
The fumes from the Hair Saloon affected her residential neighbors, one of which had terrible asthma.
By the time the Judge finished with the tenant of the apt with the explanation that the reason why the Municipality needs to restrict such a business in a residential area, you could tell that the Illegal Shop Owner kept the belief that she was in the right, even as the Judge granted my right to evict.
There will always be people who will make claims that property owners or those who have a lease to their space has the right to do as they see fit and that regulations are not needed, that the actions of the owners is his own business and have no empirical impact on the lives of their neighbors.
It's a sure sign of the times and unfortunately, I see the same arguments here and almost everywhere else. I see that people actually believe that the owners of their space really should be the "God" of their space.
Perhaps one day, especially those who may be religious as this Shop Owner was a Church going person, to actually follow the Commandment "Love thy Neighbor as thyself."
- Rental Property Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 4k+ votes7y
Originally posted by @Luke Carl:
As a host with over 1000 5 star reviews, I just wish AirBnB would take my side. Ever. As opposed to taking the side of a guest with zero reviews. Every time.**Nothing to do with Boston
Airbnb was a great idea. List room people had and allow those with room to connect with people that needed rooms.
Sort of a spare room focused version of craigslist.
I think people should be able to rent out their house to whoever for whatever but I can’t stand Airbnb as a company. From the host issue you point out and their rabid politics that gross me out.
I used to use them. Now I don’t (though to be fair I’m not in the market to need their service thankfully)
- 7yBrad SicoliBusiness MemberReal Estate Agent · Davenport, IA · Member since 2017 · 35 posts · 27 votes@Mary Mitchell You gotta be kidding me! Here’s how str’s are GOOD for their neighbors and commuties: 1) as a str owner on both aIrbnb and vrbo I review my guests. Hotels can’t do that. If my guest has a bad reputation I can and have rejected them 2) when guests stay at my place they spend their money hyper locally, benefiting the businesses nearby. 3) I hire many professionals to maintain my property, most notably a cleaner i pay about $1000 per month and is a neighbor of mine. 4) my vacation rental will never be the eyesore on the block. As a thriving investment it is imperative that I maintain a professional clean appearance. Property values benefit from that. 5) and oh yeah, THE CONSUMER benefits. People want a different kind of vancation experience that isn’t the same old hotel. Despite all the taxes and regulations and hotel lobbyists the demand still exists.
- 7yBrad SicoliBusiness MemberReal Estate Agent · Davenport, IA · Member since 2017 · 35 posts · 27 votes@Robert B. So if Airbnb’s increase rent prices, you are concluding that is a bad thing? Frankly I think that’s a good thing! It means more commerce is taking place in that community and people are making more and therefore can afford more rent. I don’t need an empirical study to figure that out.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.