I think the board of supes missed an incredible opportunity here to enforce code. One problem with many of SF's downstairs "in-law" units, in my opinion, is that they are almost always built without permits and in violation of building codes. This can be a big deal - having done a downstairs remodel recently with proper permits, I know the expense but also the value of licensed electrical and plumbing work, proper structural engineering, and firewalls to prevent the inferno that results from faulty wiring from spreading to the bedroom next door. My take on it is this -the government has the right to inspect hotel rooms. I'd say if you want to list your home on airbnb and turn it into a commercial property, you probably should have to accept that the govt will enforce proper safety, environmental, and structural regulations like it would for a hotel room, without the same privacy issues we'd extend to someone's home.
>I'd say if you want to list your home on airbnb and turn it into a commercial property, you probably should have to accept that the govt will enforce proper safety, environmental, and structural regulations like it would for a hotel room, without the same privacy issues we'd extend to someone's home.
I don't know about California, but in Massachusetts short term rental activity is explicitly residential, and not commercial, per existing case law. That may be why they didn't do what you suggest.
No idea, but that is a good point. I think that the internet has dramatically changed the nature of short term rentals. I don't think that regulations have become irrelevant - in some ways they are more relevant than ever - but they do need to adapt.
Prior to the internet, it was difficult enough to get word out and so forth about a spare room that short term rentals could be regulated largely as an afterthought. Now, they're a multi-billion dollar industry.
There may be a middle ground we need to find, something between "government out of my private home" and surprise inspections of a hotel. But things like unpermitted wiring, lead paint, uninspected furnaces, the absence of carbon monoxide alarms… while these things are actually illegal in residential units, I think the game really does change when you start to expose potentially hundreds of people to this over the course of a year through commercial use of a property.
"Unpermitted" wiring doesn't mean that it is unsafe, wrong, or even illegal. And unless you're remodeling, lead paint is just a scare story.
I agree that when commercial activity takes place, inspections are necessary so that people don't have their implicit expectations violated. But your comment demonstrates a big problem with how this ends up being implemented - people cut wide swaths through subjects they know little about (driven by fear of the unknown), leaving mandatory onerous regulations in their wake. And obviously once the regulatory bodies obtain power, they will work to expand their scope like any organism.
Take for instance the recent addition of mandatory AFCIs in the NEC. Yes, modern circuit breakers are now running unauditable and unupgradeable software! In addition, the prohibitive cost of these devices actually causes fewer circuits to be built out in new construction. The simpler solution would have been to stop running plastic-covered wires through wood-framed structures, but presumably the AFCI patent holders lobbied for such circuits not being exempt.
(Don't get me started on California title 24, user-hostile shutoff timers, and sickly GU24)
The bulk of the criticism from rational people that I hear is due to the "but they do need to adapt" argument. Flagrantly violating the law just because you want the law to change is not the proper way to do this. If Airbnb wanted to form this industry and generate revenue for cities and offer protections for renters, rentees, and residents in the buildings the units reside in, they would attempt to change the law through legislature. The fact that they simply keep raking in profits from users obviously violating the law paints them in a very negative light to any rational resident of a city where Airbnb is illegal.
They are in a sweet spot right now, where they get to compete with commercial business, but with nearly no regulations. Essentially, they are commerce where it comes to profits, but "sharing someone's home" where it comes to regulations.
It's kind of like running a restaurant out of your dining room, but claiming that the government has no right to inspect your kitchen, because you're "sharing" meals. If I invite friends over for dinner, I should be careful about food prep, but the government clearly doesn't have the right to suddenly show up and inspect my counters and refrigerator.
But if I start charging and serving a large number of meals this way? Totally different game.
Its not completely unreasonable to break the law to protest it when you find it unreasonable. On the other hand, you need to understand that, in doing so, you may be fined or do jail time for your actions.
That's called civil disobedience. I consider it more legit if it is done by individuals for social change rather than for profit companies to make money.
As an individual, yes. Airbnb is more like facilitating individuals breaking the law (or their contract ie lease), so most of the culpability falls on the individual, not on Airbnb.
Huh? Of course it is - the case I'm referencing (Crowninshield v. Blaisdell) is explicitly regarding the classification of short term rentals. The courts found them to be residential, not commercial (which makes sense, if it's a residential short term rental).
If "passed inspection" implies "is legal", Airbnb would be taking on substantial legal risk and it would remove probably 99% of the listings in NYC (I only mention NYC because I live there and am aware of the laws), making one of the most densely populated areas a big hole in the map.
Well, the badge could be optional and there could be fine print saying "The badge indicates that we've received proof the property passed inspection. Properties lacking the badge may have also passed inspection".
