> Maybe some should, those that actually run "B&B" type outfits, but a lot of airbnb places are not like that, rather it's an individual renting out his own apartment (or a room therein) just to make ends meet. I doubt any such person will go through the process of registering as something which he/she is not.
IMHO a person renting out a part of their living space for short term stays, be it a room or multiple rooms, falls in the same category as a B&B place - whatever you call that category doesn't matter. The motivations they do that for don't matter. The rules and restrictions actually do depend on the number of guests you take in and so should be registration process. But if the registration process is the major obstacle, then why doesn't AirBnB work with the authorities to make that easier for small scale subletting.
The contracts between the landlord and the person renting the apartment are just that: a contract both parties willingly agreed to. The state does not enforce the contract in any way, but provides the legal framework and acts as an arbiter of sorts. It also needs to enforce any arbitration since the state holds the monopoly on physical force. It also restricts the type of contracts that are allowed - no murder contracts obviously :)
I also think that the landlord should be able to restrict certain usages of his property - he does have a vested interest in keeping the value of his property high in the long term, which goes beyond a single rental term. So he might have an interest in the no short-term subletting clause because the other people living in the apartment complained, exposing him to the risk of a fine. OTOH I totally agree the within reasonable bounds, the person renting the flat should be free to use it as she/he sees fit.
The problem w/your "the law is the law" argument is that it makes laws unenforceable. Society changes, and the statutory laws & regulations take time to change with it. This problem forms the basis of Common Law tradition (which hold in the US), where individual Courts may interpret the law and set Precedent in light of their view of Society's best interests.
Under this system, it is hoped that authorities will also consider what is best for society, not just the letter of the law, as not doing so would risk wasting resources. For example, you won't see prosecutors enforcing Sodomy laws, because they know such actions won't hold up in Court. Unfortunately, the balance has recently been tilted towards "law is the law" thinking.
The reason for this is that the cost to those being prosecuted is so high it constitutes a punishment in and of itself. Since the prosecutors as individuals are not on the hook for the costs of investigating, bringing and defending charges, their only incentives are their own political and career ambitions.
I believe it is one of the great political and legal challenges of our time to reverse this trend, perhaps you think otherwise.
I'm all in favor or changing laws - but here the case is more difficult than a law that obviously has been overtaken by reality:
* One issue here is widespread tax evasion. There's no way we can have a debate about tax evasion by just stating "that law should be changed, I'm not paying those taxes." And AirBnB was clearly aware of that issue, yet they chose not to do anything about it. Their FAQ even state that you have to comply with local rules and restrictions and now those that didn't have a problem.
* It's not like AirBnB is having this problem only in New York or in the USA - the same debate has sprung up in Paris, Munich, Hamburg and Berlin, indicating that the problem is more widespread and not a problem with common law.
* Registering as some kind of "I'm renting out rooms to short-term visitors" might or might not be a good thing for society. It certainly ties in with the above point - anyone registered would have to pay. However, this is a city regulation, it's not part of the common law system. The city could change the regulation if the majority deemed it appropriate though. Until then, this is not "opt-out" without consequences. You can either comply or bear the consequences if you want to challenge the law in court. Otherwise I could just argue that any regulation is not in the best interest for society and opt out. I, as an individual don't get to make that decision.
> The reason for this is that the cost to those being prosecuted is so high it constitutes a punishment in and of itself.
But that's not the issue at stake here. This is certainly a massive problem of the american law enforcement. I don't know how to solve that though, but that issue is reaching much further than AirBnBs feud with the New York GA. See patent trolls etc. that all leverage that property of the system to their interest.
> I believe it is one of the great political and legal challenges of our time to reverse this trend, perhaps you think otherwise.
I totally agree here, but I don't think that "ignoring any law I personally deem unjust or senseless" is the way to go.
IMHO a person renting out a part of their living space for short term stays, be it a room or multiple rooms, falls in the same category as a B&B place - whatever you call that category doesn't matter. The motivations they do that for don't matter. The rules and restrictions actually do depend on the number of guests you take in and so should be registration process. But if the registration process is the major obstacle, then why doesn't AirBnB work with the authorities to make that easier for small scale subletting.
The contracts between the landlord and the person renting the apartment are just that: a contract both parties willingly agreed to. The state does not enforce the contract in any way, but provides the legal framework and acts as an arbiter of sorts. It also needs to enforce any arbitration since the state holds the monopoly on physical force. It also restricts the type of contracts that are allowed - no murder contracts obviously :)
I also think that the landlord should be able to restrict certain usages of his property - he does have a vested interest in keeping the value of his property high in the long term, which goes beyond a single rental term. So he might have an interest in the no short-term subletting clause because the other people living in the apartment complained, exposing him to the risk of a fine. OTOH I totally agree the within reasonable bounds, the person renting the flat should be free to use it as she/he sees fit.