All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

@David Fernandez So this is what airBNB is trying to go public for..... to raise funds to run around suing, harassing and bullying the cities?

They sued SF, NYC and Miami, and appear to be targeting towns with strong rentals. When are they going to realize other cities and towns have ordinances that they have to comply with just as they had to in SF? 

Not every town will allow the use of residential properties for short term rentals or pass laws just so airBNB can make money... which conflicts with their business model; so the play then seems to be sue every city and coerce them to change their law so we can make a profit?

Many people see it as a way to make a quick buck.. and obviously have clouded judgment on the matter. You ask a crack smoker if crack should be legalized, and his response will always be yes, whether or not its good for him or her. 

The guy crusading for the legalization of crack doesn't have the smokers health and well being as his motive, no,  its his bank account he's worried about.

They very people airBNB is alleging to be crusading for are left hung out to dry when they are making deals with the cities exempting themselves from the fines and requesting they levy it only on airBNB users.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article14...

@Ben S. This is obviously what a federal judge thinks... will be sure to pass on your thoughts.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/judge-rejects-airbnb...

@David Weintraub Most people think the government is somehow going after airBNB unjustly -- not the case. AirBNB is simply trying to cover its rear and trying to be immune from fines and fees that result from violation of local ordinances which it facilitates. Their primary contention always is, "this is just going to cost us too much money" or that government should "restrict the fines to renter and not them". They trying to coerce governments to change laws so they can make more money... or have governments spent tax dollars on their behalf. What is insane is what airBNB is trying to do.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/judge-rejects-airbnb...

@Michael Biggs Based on the nature of some transactions in business, you often may have compliance implications both at the federal, state, county and city or town level. Some transactions you have both a county, city and state tax. In San Francisco for instance, they sued the city of SF because they felt complying would be too costly. They tried this also in New York. They will have compliance issues in many jurisdictions not just in the US but around the world.

@Ben S. and by the way... these are tenants who often are just renting the property that they do not own, in violation of their lease, not to mention, HOA and city ordinances. The landlord usually finds out about this, when they get fined by the city or get a complaint about an airBNB tenant that they never vetted or rented to. Are you sure you understand the big picture?

@Ben S. Are you sure you are familiar with the whole airBNB issue? Because from your response, it appears you may not be.

The cities are being lenient. There are zoning laws that regulate real estate. To use a building for short term rentals, a hotel, it has to be zoned for that use. To operate a hotel, there are certain licenses you need to obtain. There are fees and taxes you need to pay. 

A substantial amount of airBNB rentals are in violation of many of theses ordinances. Resulting in landlord fines. 

The cities are actually saying, look, if you guys want to use airBNB, you need to get compliant with laws affecting short term rentals. How is that a violation of the country's constitutional law?

@Angela Yan When you say "it is set up for airBNB", you mean you are in compliance with city of SF and can rent on airBNB? 

Doesn't each tenant that need to also rent unit on airBNB have to get compliant themselves also and get all the licences prescribed by the city?

If it is the case also that you are only allowed to rent the unit on airBNB only for a maximum of 60 days... how much is that in revenue for you to make more $en$e than a long term rental?

https://www.cnet.com/news/san-francisco-limits-air...

@Will Barnard That is precisely the point... the risk for $10,000 (apparently pre tax profit) is significant. The rehabber would have very little or no room for error. Just an error can easily cost you $5000 and 9 months of paying hard money lender 14% is just bad math.

@Elizabeth Galarza For a property with a $250,000 ARV, you want to shoot for both purchase and rehab cost to = 5% lower than lenders max LTV. The hard money lender may in some cases only lend 65% to 70% LTV. If you start exceeding the lender's LTV, it means you are likely to have excessive out of pocket cost and thiner margins.

@John T. If you are getting anything back other than the $135,000, then the finance charge can't be 0; if you are getting $135,000 in 5 years, the exact amount you loaned out, then the finance charge is 0. Do you have any pictures of this property?