Or blatant tax avoidance and disregard for building code and hotel regulations is a matter of importance for the state of New York. It may seem all outdated to us global internet citizens, but a lot of those old-fashioned real-world rules evolved because there was a problem. That's not to say that all rules in their current incarnation are sensible and well applicable to the current state of affairs, but participation in the law system is not voluntary - you don't get to opt out just because you think it's unjust.
I get that, but if you really think this has ANYTHING to do with enforcement of safety and health standards then you are living in a dream. If that was their primary concern then the nasty cesspool "hotels" would not exist. Even big, corporate chain hotels are usually nasty and disgusting.
This is ALL about collecting taxes and ensuring private profits in clear and simple form of corruption out of incompetence and fear of actually having to compete. Maybe prices need to come down or service needs to improve so I may want to stay at a hotel that can provide what an AirBnB can't?
Imagine that. American companies actually having to compete instead of rigging systems that ensure "success".
I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I can try:
* I think prosecuting tax evasion is one reason. It's hotel tax actually and not income tax, but tax evasion is tax evasion. However, I don't see why AirBnB host should play by different rules than a b&b-style guest house.
* Same applies for zoning restrictions. We can debate if the current restrictions are sensible or not, but that's the playground and the rules and we all play by the same rules.
* Hotels are cesspools. Yes, some are. Even chain hotels are. I don't know about NY hotels but I've seen quite a few and they range from "great in all regards" to "glad I'm far away". All in all most hove been acceptable. B&B rentals are on the same scale. At least with hotels there's a place I can report violations to.
I fail to see any reason or moral right that AirBnB host should not have to register as a B&B place, not pay the applicable fees and not adhere to the applicable rules. They're totally free to do that and then advertise on AirBnB. However, the implied reason a lot of hosts don't do that is because their landlord won't allow them to sublet the apartment - but that's a totally different problem. I fail to see any moral right that your landlord has to allow sublets. It's also none of the states business.
There's a lot wrong with governments and corruption and often they're incompetent and played by interested parties, but I think it's wrong to always assume that as the primary cause for government action.
I fail to see any reason or moral right that AirBnB host should not have to register as a B&B place,
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.
The question of landlords/subleasing rights is an interesting one. Even as a libertarian I harbor doubts about complicated rental contracts (of any sort, including for example e-books).
If you call it the "business" of the State to enforce contracts, clearly the State has a valid interest in restricting what those contracts can consist of. For example, a contract which suborns murder or slavery should obviously not be enforced by the State.
It's a valid libertarian position to say when you rent something to someone, you transfer ownership for a period of time, and ownership gives one the right to do as they please with the property. When it comes time to return said property, should it be returned damaged, then the original owner can claim damage of property. Nowadays, rental contracts are obscenely weighted in the landlords favor .. including wording that controls your personal life (must notify the landlord if anyone is staying overnight etc). It's usually just not the landlords business, and actually quite creepy if you ask me.
> 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.
As a New Yorker, I would be quite upset if taxes on visitor housing was eliminated. We spend a lot of money each year maintaining our city for our residents and guests alike. We invest in infrastructure to handle millions of people coming in and out each day, we spend millions cleaning streets and subways, we fund local arts programs and museums that you enjoy when you come to visit us, and much more. I hope you come to New York often, and enjoy our wonderful city, and I hope you contribute to the cost of maintaining that city so that it continues to be awesome for a long time to come.
As a fellow New Yorker, I would be upset of taxes on visitor housing were eliminated.
The governments gotta get it's money somehow, and I'd rather them tax visitor housing and the housing would pass those costs down to the tourists than for taxes for everyday New Yorkers be raised.
As a resident of one of the most visited city in the world, I am very happy about these taxes paid by tourists (in the end) that allow me to enjoy lower taxes.
But that's not the place of the legislature (or a judge), not the AG.
I realize that in practice this happens, but we set a dangerous precedent when we allow the Attorney General to decide what should and should not be prosecuted. In theory, the Attorney General prosecutes all perceived violations of the law[0], and it's up to the justice system to, well, decide of the law is just.
[0] And I don't think anybody's debating that this violates the law; the debate is whether or not the law is just.
> In theory, the Attorney General prosecutes all perceived violations of the law[0]
What? No. The AG is a political office. Prosecutorial discretion is used all the time because there are lots of anachronistic and over-broad laws on the books, and because there are lots of lawbreakers that are not politically expedient to prosecute.
Exercising prosecutorial discretion is appropriate when you're talking about enforcing laws against having sex with the lights on or some such thing. Not when you're talking about enforcing laws that probably only a vocal minority actually oppose. There's a small group of property owners who want to rent out their places on AirBnB, and a much bigger group worried about what the constant stream of short-term renters will do to their neighborhoods.
This investigation is clearly political, but not in the shadowy anti-competitive way implied above. Property owners are the most important constituency for state and local governments. To a great extent, those governments exist to protect the interests of property owners. An AG pursuing a pro-owner position is hardly to be considered the result of political corruption.
You're misleading: No right of the minority is overruled in this case. If it's legal to rent out your apartment, you're not violating tax code, zoning regulations or any other laws you're free to rent out your apartment on AirBnB. However, just being a minority doesn't make you exempt from laws. The fact that the AG is investigating doesn't imply a conviction.
Tell me more about how the concerns of the majority overrule the rights of the minority.
I'm not sure the snark is necessary or even make sense. The 'minority' shouldn't expect a right to illegally rent out their living spaces. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.
I will oblige: The concerns of the law abiding majority override that of the law violating minority. An example of this is when murderers have their right to freedom of movement taken away. Surely you don't want serial killers running loose on the streets.
Do you see how easy it is to misrepresent someone's argument? We can do this all day but it would be a more productive discussion if we apply the Principle of Charity to each others' comments.
It's not the rights of the minority, in this case. In the jurisdiction in question, there is no legal right to rent your apartment to short-term guests. Nor do I perceive a moral right to do so.
It would be more accurate to say: The broad economic interests of property owners in general outweigh the narrower economic interests of people who would like to offer short-term accommodations.
> there is no legal right to rent your apartment to short-term guests
I am just trying to understand the situation. I don't see what is the difference between me being in the apartment vs somebody else being there. About taxation, we already pay income taxes. The property owner already pays property taxes. If people who rent out their apartments don't disclose said rent money in their income tax, yes I'd say it is scummy that people are getting out of paying taxes when my income tax gets reported/deducted at the source.
They probably should get hit with a huge fine for tax avoidance.
Humor me for a second. If short-term renters were quiet and non-aggressive, would you still have a problem with that? How does the hotel tax on short-term renting solve anything? Can people be loud and obnoxious because they have paid the hotel tax?
> I don't see what is the difference between me being in the apartment vs somebody else being there
There's a big difference: The landlord has researched and approved you, but not your guests. The landlord probably did a criminal background check on you, and quite possibly a search in a tenant database. They're not just concerned about deadbeats who don't pay their rent. They're also concerned about damage to the apartment, disturbance to other tenants, criminal activity, etc.
> If short-term renters were quiet and non-aggressive, would you still have a problem with that?
If you could guarantee that short-term renters wouldn't cause a problem, then that would be fine with me. (I am a landlord.) But how could you possibly guarantee that?
> Can people be loud and obnoxious because they have paid the hotel tax?
In that case, the building is officially a hotel. Which means all its occupants signed up for what hotel stays potentially entail, such as loud neighbors. Likewise, the local government approved the plan to put a hotel there, knowing full well the potential problems.
In an apartment building, none of this is true. The people living there didn't sign up for hotel living. Nor did the local government determine that transient occupants would be acceptable for the neighborhood.
You have to read the story three times -- for some reason the NYT didn't want to be clear. But the upshot is that an embezzler was using a nonprofit to recycle state grants into political contributions. His wife works for the Speaker of the State Assembly.
Any investigation of her? Or the Speaker? Prosecutorial discretion doesn't seem super interested.
There are real reasons to regulate rental activity like AirBnB's. It would be nice if we could believe the regulatory apparatus was interested in protecting ordinary citizens' rights in their ordinary residences. Seems like a stretch.
Prosecutorial discretion is used all the time because there are lots of anachronistic and over-broad laws on the books...
... and this isn't equivalent to a monarchy, how?
Among the more interesting questions in law are these: "Should every minor indiscretion be punished? If not, why not? If so, who decides? What side effects can be expected if it ever becomes possible to punish every instance of lawbreaking?"
We've hobbled our society with so many laws that their volume alone, never mind their scope, makes it impossible for any of us to call ourselves law-abiding citizens. What makes the question especially interesting and topical is that we're moving into an epoch of universal surveillance. The cops will see and know everything you do, and so will your neighbors, because they wouldn't have it any other way. Consequently we will have to rethink our prior habit of making as many laws as possible on the grounds that we're making them to control "those other people."
The time when we can dodge the Should every indiscretion be punished? question, or remain safely detached from it, is over. The archaic hotel laws, along with the arbitrary taxes that go with them, may be a good place for those of us who would like to steer society toward legislative minimalism to make our stand. (Yeah, yeah, I know, why don't I move to Somalia, etc., etc.) Good luck to AirBnB in what will probably be a very difficult fight against powerful incumbent interests.
> Yeah, yeah, I know, why don't I move to Somalia, etc.
Seriously: Large bodies of law evolved because there's always some idiot that tries to take advantage of a loophole in law. Because we as a society needed to codify property rules, no-murder and rule of law, all those pesky little amenities you'd be lacking in Somalia.
If we could all agree on "don't do things you don't want to be done onto you" and "be reasonable" then we wouldn't need like 90% of todays laws. But zoning regulations were at some point created because people just didn't want to have a party crowd of tourist on their pavement. I know, I've been living on one of the to-go places in Berlin for two years. It's just annoying that people can't be at least a little decent - I've had my share of loud spanish, english, german discussions on the pavement, drunk people en masse in the supermarket and alcohol induced puke on the porch, enough of having to keep my dog from chewing on the tenth used condom.
So I'm quite happy that there's no hotel where I live now and that none of my neighbors is trying to run a hotel-like establishment on AirBnB. And I'd prefer it to stay this way. (no, moving away is not an option - I already moved away once). And basically this all falls back to "if people would just behave at least a little, there'd be no problem."
Well, sure. But it's not like that AirBnB was coming forward and discussing health and fire code implications or taxing problems with the service they created with the local authorities. AirBnB basically pushes that burden down to the host - most of whom will not read or obey the advice hidden in the FAQ. Also, I sincerely doubt that the IRS will be very forthcoming to discuss whether the current taxation rules are sensible or not with someone who's charged with avoiding taxes.
I understand that solving the problem is partially out of scope for AirBnB but so far they've been taking the easy route by ignoring and denying the problem. Reminds me of the mess über had at its hand when complaining about the taxi regulations in stockholm.
The laws were (presumably) debated before they were passed. So it's not premature to enforce those laws today. It's not shooting first and asking questions later. It's more like asking questions, having a vote on whether we can shoot, and then shooting.
We may not like the exact formulation of those laws. We may consider them overly broad or intrusive. We may feel they should have distinguished between abusive profiteers and average, well-intentioned citizens who only rarely rent out their apartments. These are reasonable positions, and I can see their merit. We probably should have that debate. And amendments to the existing laws probably should be given a fair shot in the legislature.
But until then, it's entirely appropriate to enforce the laws that were duly passed many years ago. One could argue that the government should exercise some discretion, and enforce the laws only against those operators who are actually causing a problem. Well, according to the unnamed source in the government, that's exactly what they're doing. You may choose to believe that source or not. But until we hear about the government coming down hard on a legit, small-time user, I'm prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Which side are you referring to? Is the AG shooting first by subpoenaing rather than having a discussion, or AirBnB shooting first by building a business that's probably at variance with tax law rather than working to reform the law first?
I think the point is that you shouldn't be vastly more likely to enforce laws that would harm the competitors of your biggest campaign donors but I guess making up the persons argument and then tearing that down is more satisfying?
I'm not making up this persons argument. I'm just offering an alternative explanations. Granted, I rant a little about how us net-citizens often regard obeying rules as optional rather than obligatory, but that's more because that's the common counter-argument to "hey, they're prosecuted because they broke laws.".
I strongly doubt that the parents theory applies for a couple of reasons:
* The donation is the 4th largest, but still only 1.58%. That's a bit - but there are more donations in the same ballpark. The largest donation is just shy of tenfold that amount. We're talking 40k USD here. It might move the AG a little in the desired direction, but I doubt "vastly more likely" applies here.
* The company donating isn't even in the same market. AirBnB and Glenwood Real Estate Corp. are not competitors.
* AirBnB is having the same troubles in other cities. NY is just further ahead in the hardball game.
* This has been unfolding for quite a while. I'm rather surprised it took so long.
All in all, I think your and the OPs conspiracy theory doesn't apply here. I think it's just a standard case of a startup trying to revolutionize a market that they've deemed "ripe for disruption" and on the way bulldozering their way over laws and regulations. And now they've just hit a wall that won't budge so easily. The sad part of the affair is that most of the fallout will hit the AirBnB hosts who are legally on the hook, but that's something both sides, AirBnB and the AG have willingly taken into account.
It's depressing how little money it takes to buy a politician. I would completely believe $40k. The AG isn't doing anything illegal, he has prosecutorial discretion. As we have more and more laws, more and more power is vested in him.
AGs, tend to take cases where the press is automatic, they thrive on a series of sure wins in order to keep up their public image so when they step up to running for a higher office they have all that to fall back on.
See, 40k to his personal pocket and I'd totally believe you. 1.5% of the campaign costs with more donors matching or eclipsing the donation, no, I don't buy this. It's money he never touched.
