Airbnb is making it clear this week that not only does it oppose efforts by city councilors to regulate the apartments and condos it advertises, it will take the low road to do it.
In e-mail to its "friends," the company writes:
Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu has a proposal that would place unreasonable restrictions on home sharing in the city and we need your help to stop it. She has aligned with big hotel interests against the interests of regular Bostonians.
The e-mail continues the companies set up an online tool for sending pre-written complaints to city councilors and Mayor Walsh.
The company claims the proof that Wu is in bed with Big Hotel is that her proposal (which City Councilor Lydia Edwards is also working on) would bar renters from subletting their units to Airbnb customers, would bar individuals from staying more than 30 days in a unit and would probably be worse for your privacy than even a poll on Facebook by requiring owners of Airbnb units to notify their neighbors and supply information to the city - although much of the information, including rental prices, would have to be supplied by Airbnb to the city, not by the unit owners.
Airbnb does not point to a large influx of campaign cash from Big Hotel to Wu, probably because state campaign-finance records show no such thing in 2018. It also doesn't note that Wu has proposed banning investor-owned units from the rental-share market completely, possibly because that would not fit in with Airbnb's alleged theory that Wu is going after the little guy.
Wu and Edwards, and before them, Sal LaMattina, argued that an unfettered room-share market in Boston is making it more and more difficult for actual Bostonians to stay in the city, as investors buy up entire buildings to rent out on Airbnb and similar platforms.
The complete Airbnb e-mail follows:
Hi [Recipient name],
Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu has a proposal that would place unreasonable restrictions on home sharing in the city and we need your help to stop it. She has aligned with big hotel interests against the interests of regular Bostonians. Will you use our speakout tool and send an email to Mayor Walsh and City Council today asking them to support responsible home sharing in Boston?Send an email
The Wu proposal would place unnecessary restrictions on home sharing by:
• Placing a restrictive 30-day cap on unhosted stays.
• Prohibiting renters from sharing their homes, something not done anywhere else in the United States.
• Requiring notification of neighbors and that platforms like Airbnb collect and share an invasive amount of personal information putting your privacy at risk.We know that when the collective voice of the Airbnb community is heard by lawmakers, we can stop restrictive and unnecessary laws like this from passing. That’s why sending an email to the Boston City Council today is so important.
Thanks,
The Airbnb Team
Sent with [love] from
Airbnb, Inc.
888 Brannan Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Is the headline slanted? You bet
By adamg
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 4:44pm
Airbnb makes a pretty low accusation and doesn't back it up. Even Uber in its war over city regulations never went that far.
Is it really an accusation?
By Lunchbox
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 6:00pm
AirBnB doesn't say Wu took "big hotel" money, or anything like that. It just says
"She has aligned with big hotel interests"
That is, her interests and "big hotel's" interests are similar. Which is true - what she's suggesting would benefit hotels.
I think the argument is kinda dumb, but it doesn't seem all that horrible.
renters and people who want to be homeowners, not hotels.
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 6:39pm
Is it true hotels are who she's aligned her interests with? I think she's aligned her interests with renters and people who want to be homeowners, not hotels. Permanent residents don't move to hotels to stop paying 50% of income on rent.
A study released in 2016 by Keren Horn and Mark Merante found that Airbnb had a direct impact on increased housing prices in Boston:
I see it now
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 3:23pm
Wu has been bought by Big Patel.
Perhaps you can add some
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 6:51am
Perhaps you can add some aerial photographs of the devastation wrought by Airbnb's bombardment of the city. Surely if entire neighborhoods are literally being destroyed you should be able to show some evidence.
She has aligned with big
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 4:48pm
I think these jackasses have her confused with Shirley.
She IS Aligned with Hotel Workers
By APB
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 6:21pm
Who are in danger of losing their jobs as the hotels are no longer in such demand. Hotel workers are not only losing their jobs or having their hours cut, they are being forced out of their neighborhoods, from Chinatown to Eastie to Dorchester, because they can't afford the rents. Some who testified at the City Council hearing on AirBnb regulations said they had lost their apartments to AirBnbs.
How about losing your job AND your housing to the same enterprise, huh? I'm glad Wu and Edwards are advocating for a solution that would help protect these people. If that's aligning with the hotel industry, I'm all for it. And we also heard at that hearing that the AirBnb renters who were present admitted paying much less to their cleaners: minimum wage and part-time, so no benefits.
Okay
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 6:56pm
Then they can come live in Brighton, where they're building new homes left and right. I've done my job. I didn't sign the petition when a lady came to my door asking me to oppose Market and Saybrook.
Also, the hotel buildings aren't disappearing into thin air. Perhaps hoteliers should start renting hotel rooms to permanent residents, since it was clear through decades of high prices that they weren't interested in charging what a truly free market would bear for lodging.
Using workers as a token to prop up a corporation is heinous. Using workers as a token to bar non-dedicated hotel property investors from seeking a return on their investment is even worse.
I have no idea
By boo_urns
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 9:57am
What you're trying to say in this comment or on the topic at large.
I'll help you
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:18am
Brighton = Boston neighborhood
Petition = Document circulated on behalf of a cause to be presented to an authority, filled in with signatures of parties who endorse the cause
Market and Saybrook = Intersection in Brighton where a housing complex is currently being built
Hotel = Place where people pay to stay for a few days, most often when visiting somewhere not near their home
Hoteliers = Person or entity who operates a hotel
Permanent residents = People who are entrenched in and inhabit a community
Free market = When people exchange goods and services for barter or currency without coercion, force, or theft
Token = An item of currency, often short-term and of nominal value
Investor = A person who places a sum of money into an asset with the expectation that the value will increase over time
This doesn't help
By boo_urns
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:28am
You, me, your point, or the discussion. What does what you said have to do with the topic and issues at hand?
I mean the comment talked about displacement
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:41am
And AirBnb's impact upon it, at which point, I countered with talk of increasing the housing stock and possible uses for the commercial hotels which are losing business.
I'm really not sure how that's not connected.
I guess I don't understand
By boo_urns
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:45am
How you can argue that people who are being priced out of lower cost neighborhoods could possibly move into Brighton. I have a good feeling I make more than a hotel worker and I couldn't even do that right now.
I see the issue more about the lack of regulation on AirBnB. AirBnB has no incentive to make any changes to the market in general. It has incentive to make money. But that doesn't mean that the State/City can't move to regulate what people can do with their assets if they want to use AirBnB to do it. I don't even think AirBnB has to be a party in that conversation. It only affects how people use AirBnB. The service is still there for people who have extra rooms to rent out.
But I don't know why you'd move people into hotels, or how that would be a viable solution.
How you can argue that people
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:06am
No? I see several rooms around $800 a month on Craigslist.
I mean, yeah?
You cited the rule of law. Put a dollar in the jar.
Because you can? There's a finite number of visitors to Boston. Maybe if hotels lose enough business to AirBnb, they can lease their existing spaces to residents.
Not sure why you think
By boo_urns
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:56pm
That any of this either refutes something I say or supports your argument. Nor do I understand the dollar in the jar thing. Truly "free" markets are a myth.
We agree on that
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 1:10pm
Free markets are a myth, because humans are greedy trolls.
The dollar in the jar is a recurring meme that I use around here whenever somebody cites the rule of law, i.e. "the council can make a regulation." That's clear and adds nothing to a debate.
So you don't like the rule of law
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 1:22pm
Hmmm.
Where do you say you live, again?
When did I say I didn't like it?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 4:47pm
I'm just saying that I'm aware that civic functions exist, and that bringing up their existence in an argument with me is stupid.
How cute you think $800 for a
By F that
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 3:54pm
How cute you think $800 for a bedroom is reasonable
Illiteracy Day
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 4:49pm
Ironic, since Barbara Bush just died.
Literally all I said was that rooms exist for $800 in Brighton. I didn't say that was reasonable, and I didn't say that was unreasonable. It's what the market bears.
That said, I think that's a high price relative to wages, and as such, again, I didn't sign the petition to oppose the development at Market and Saybrook.
Uh,
By Anon
Thu, 04/19/2018 - 12:37am
You literally brought up that $800 a month thing as a counterpoint to someone saying that Brighton wasn't affordable to live in for a hotel worker. You changed the goal post after someone called you on it.
I didn't change the goalpost
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 04/19/2018 - 4:05pm
The other guy established it. I didn't check the tax returns of every Bostonian before I offered $800 as reasonable rent in Brighton.
So you did?
By Anon
Thu, 04/19/2018 - 5:21pm
So you did offer $800 as reasonable rent in Boston. Because two posts ago, you said you didn't do that. Now it's time to kick the field goal, can you decide on a goalpost placement or would you like to move it around again?
Time to kick the field goal?
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 04/19/2018 - 11:37pm
I can go for it on fourth down. Do you understand American football?
I think you may have meant:
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 7:15pm
Sucks, but AirBnB isn't the driving force here
Not nice; not a business model I particularly want to support, but it's tautological that paying people minimum wage is legal.
The idea that
By George_Apley
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:36pm
Boston hotels are not in demand seems ludicrous to me. It's one of the most expensive hotel markets in the country.
Regulations are needed
By Stevil
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 5:11pm
But I can sympathize with running a national business that's trying to comply with regulations set by literally thousands of communities. Mind numbing.
where is Beacon Hill on all this - they've been talking about effectively making these arrangements the same as a hotel - but.... Crickets...
I guess, but, the big hotel
By bgl
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 5:45pm
I guess, but, the big hotel chains seem not to have that much trouble adhering to different local regulations.
Big hotel, big difference
By Stevil
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 6:59pm
First, hotels are regulated by the state other than local building compliance and some taxes.
Also, very different models. Air bnb isn't a hotel. It's a booking service.
Not arguing against regulation. But if every town starts coming up with different rules it'll be a mess. The state just needs to do its job.
Yeah
By bgl
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:28pm
I guess thats what I meant - air bnb should be lobbying for state level regulation, which the big hotels seem able to do, and air bnb is certainly a big enough company to accommodate.
That said - saying air bnb is just a booking agency is akin to saying Uber/Lyft are just booking/riding sharing companies, which is pretty far from the truth.
Correction
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 5:48pm
Running a national business that, from the start, has tried to capitalize on ignoring the regulations by which existing businesses play, and lying about it.
Is anyone at all surprised that they'll start mudslinging?
AirBnb and Uber both need to be forced out of the city, and fined so heavily that investors get very angry, and investors stop supporting companies like this.
I’m neutral on AirBnB, but
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 8:36pm
I’m neutral on AirBnB, but until I can hail a cab on the street anywhere in Boston, I strongly support Lyft sticking around.
The key difference
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:05pm
Lyft and Uber came into being as a direct response to government having created an artificial scarcity of taxis, which resulted in a net transfer of value from taxi customers and drivers into the hands of the bankers who financed the $1M cost of a medallion. AirBnB came into being as a response to market forces that were less cynically created.
Agreed. I would take to the
By RoseMai
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:03pm
Agreed. I would take to the streets if Boston tried to kick out Uber/Lyft.
We're not NYC- Boston has never had enough taxis to meet demand. Not to mention all the territory disputes among cabs, so that Cambridge cabs can only take fares originating in Cambridge. And their "broken" meters, having to call dispatch to schedule a ride that will hopefully come get you and not pick up a closer fare first, inability to track or know the name of who's picking you up, smelly cars... I could go on and on. What a joke.
See above
By Stevil
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 8:58pm
It's a booking service - not a hotel. What rules is air bnb breaking (not the hosts - the web service)?
The hotel service is actually offered by local landlords, owners and renters. Likewise, Uber/Lyft are basically answering services for car service.
You don't need 351 different sets of regulations and fees for these things - the state can license and take care of this (and collect fees/taxes to enforce these rules).
Abetting Crimes
By BlackKat
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 5:25am
AirBnB is facilitating tax evasion and people running unlicensed / un-inspected businesses at the least.
Whose fault is that
By Stevil
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:23am
Air BnB isnt exactly hiding these units. In fact, I think they'll even provide data to the community.
If laws aren't being enforced, call the city/state.
Enforce the hotel laws on them
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:31am
How about the people who were burned out in Davis Square? The vacationing family killed by CO?
If they are going to run hotels, then hotel laws apply.
Who owns the hotel
By Stevil
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 5:48pm
If someone gets killed on a plane or in a hotel, is the travel agent or website that did the booking responsible?
Of course not. It's on the owner.
Not following the sympathy statement
By Daan
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 9:49am
Every national business that operates across the nation has to deal with local regulations, ranging from locality to state. This is normal for a society that ideally spreads power to many rather than concentrating power in just a few hands.
There are folks who want to eliminate the sources of power that can interfere with their conduct. How else can they act as monopolies, duopolies and oligarchs?
I have no sympathy for the people running a national corporation that has to deal with local regulations. They made the choice to operate in that environment.
You can try to bury it
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:09am
But I still caught you. Rule of law. Dollar in the jar.
yawn
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:13pm
this is the equivalent of coming to a discussion among atheists and demanding they put a dollar in the jar each time they take the lord's name in vain.
Well no
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 4:54pm
I can prove that the rule of law exists.
What a load of BS
By Saddlebrook7
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 5:25pm
"Sharing" is when you let someone you know stay at your place, probably when you are also at home. Where Airbnb makes its real money, and what the Council is trying to contain, is the shadow hotel business.
Also - if my tenants were
By bgl
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 5:46pm
Also - if my tenants were subletting on air bnb I would be pretty rip shit given the time and effort put into screening tenants in the first place.
Lease
By BostonDog
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 5:53pm
Nothing is stopping you from putting a clause against it in the lease.
Yes, and...
By ChrisP
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 8:08pm
What if you already have a lease in place?
or..
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 8:45pm
you have to sue to enforce them or they're not legal compared to what's on the books. which is why they're trying to pass legislation.
If you knew what you were
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:05pm
If you knew what you were doing as a landlord, you would have included a clause in your leases banning unapproved sublets long before Airbnb was invented.
and if you had the slightest clue
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 4:57pm
You would know that most leases have included these clauses for 30+ years.
Most landlords use the MA boilerplate, maybe modified slightly by a lawyer friend.
You would also know how difficult it is to enforce this and how expensive.
Pages
Add comment