All Forum Posts by: John Clark

"And I do not see how making AirBnB's computers "kill" a profile once they have passed 120 rented days is not making AirBnB enforce the City of Boston's laws. Whether it is a computer, a person, or a monkey with a marker, the act, not the mechanism, is what matters in determining enforcement.

Also the bar analogy is completely specious. A bar patron buys a drink from the bar. AirBnB connects two parties, one who has a property for rent, the other who wants to rent a property.

My original point still stands. AirBnB isn't fighting the regulation of STR, it's fighting government imposition of its day to day operations."

--------------------------------------------------

Once the person has passed 120 days of rental, later rentals would be illegal. AirBnB knows that, because AirBnB  tracks usage (tomake sure it gets paid). So AirBnB is knowingly facilitating an offense. It is Boston's right to prevent that. That has nothing to do with "day to day operations." You can't facilitate transactions you know to be illegal.

As for the bar, let me remind you that AirBnB takes a cut from the transaction. It's not just connecting two parties. It brokers them, and profits from having the listings, if only to play up network effects to get other hosts to post on AirBnB. Is it a great analogy? No. It does point out, however, the right of government to place burdens on a business to protect the public weal. Certainly selling drinks is a bar's "day to day operations."

As for getting the information, AirBnB is doing business in Massachusetts, and Boston in particular, so the question becomes whether Boston's demands are reasonable. Making sure that AirBnB only does business with registered property hosts -- by having AirBnB turn over host lists -- is reasonable. If AirBnB does not do so, then AirBnB is potentially facilitating illegal transactions, and will be fined for so doing.

"AirBnB isn't fighting being regulated. It is fighting to protect its status as an intermediary in the transaction and not get dragged into enforcing the cities regulations.

"Under the Boston regulations, only owner-occupied single-family, two-family, and three-family homes would be allowed to rent out their primary units or adjacent units for up to 120 days a year. The regulations bar investor-owned units or tenants from renting out their homes. The ordinance also requires hosts to register with the city and pay a $200 fee, information that would be cross-checked against data provided by platforms such as Airbnb."

-------------------------------------------------

AirBnB is the one that has the information and facilitates transactions that by their very nature disrupt neighborhoods and deprive the cities of tax revenue (hotel substitution). This isn't about being an "intermediary," it is about sharing information with the government.

As for being "dragged" into enforcement, that is hardly the case. Once your place has been rented for 120 days (which AirBnB's computers can easily keep track of), your listing is killed for the rest of the calendar year. That's mostly information sharing, and if you think that is burdensome "enforcement," then I suppose you oppose dram shop laws that tell bars to stop serving obviously drunk customers. 

After all, the bar is simply an intermediary between the patron and the drowning of his sorrows or sating of his alcoholism.

AirBnB also gives the city a list of who is registered with AirBnB as a host -- info sharing. The listing goes active after the city confirms to AirBnB that the host is registered with the city. Again, a fully automated process.

AirBnB deserves to lose. The transactions it facilitates impose externalities on the neighborhoods. AirBnB is the only entity with the information about those transactions. The transactions are commercial in nature. AirBnB simply wants to evade sensible regulation and to Hell with the people imposed upon.

"Why, because I never want to see my neighbour move out and rent out his home and I have to put up with a revolving door of strangers like living next door to a brothel."

-----------------------------------

At least with a brothel you could sample the wares . . . :)

Your tenant damaged an essential component, rendering the entire unit useless. Explain to her that you can't find a repair that isn't the same price as a replacement. So buy a replacement (new), pro-rate the useful life of the old unit (as suggested above), and charge accordingly.

Rent control will be a disaster for Chicago. Given that there are more renters than landlords, however, it will pass. Jack your rents up now so you can have a cushion when it is imposed.

What I find most disheartening is the fact that rent control will prevent people trying to move into Chicago from finding desireable apartments. Why? Because current tenants won't move out. Rent control is great for people already in place. It is a nightmare for people trying to move in. Good-bye to any dynamism in Chicago's business and social scenes.

Rent control at its heart is an entitlement program; it presupposes that people have a right to live in a particular area. That's absurd. I would love to own a house in Chicago's Gold Coast, but I can't afford it. Prices there are too high. Do we impose price controls on houses so I can buy there? Why should apartments be any different? How does anyone have a "right" to live in particular neighborhood?

One of the slogans I hear bandied about is that "one shouldn't have to chose between rent and food." Trouble is, I don't see how it is the landlord's duty to pay someone's grocery bill, which is exactly what that statement means. I don't see anyone putting price controls on food either. I can only conclude that the people arguing for rent control are simply corporate shills willing to protect multi-billion dollar corporations like the Jewel grocery chain, while hammering much smaller landlords. Call that what it is: predatory behavior.

Gentrification IS disruptive, there's no doubt about it. That is not necessarily bad. The coercive power of the state should only be used in cases of active harm in my opinion, and not being able to live in a particular place is not an active harm.

There is another thread on BP Chicago on rent control already, by the way.

"

i notice three cases against him first one was in 2008 for carrying a firearm at the age of 18, second one was for a DWI in 2010, and third one was for a pending trial that is for DWI and carrying a firearm in 2017"

------------------------------------------

You left out crucial information: What were the dispositions of the first two cases? Anybody can be arrested, it's the convictions that matter.

Also, what are the details of the 2017 firearms charge. If the guy was duck hunting without a license or a properly permitted shotgun, I'd be inclined to go easy on him. If he was charged with packing a Saturday Night Special, not so much.

You have potential on-going substance abuse issues. You have potential on-going violence (firearms) issues. You probably have other tenants in the building. Factor in all the facts and decide from there.

I asked the Chicago building department if I could have tenants use space heaters to bring an apartment into heat ordinance compliance, and was told that I could not. If you have no radiators and can't use space heaters, you'll have to install radiators or figure out another radiant heating system -- I assume that you don't want to add duct work and reconfigure furnances/boilers.

If there are any landlord associations in the area, you might ask them about the law, and lawyer referrals, too.

Check with your lawyer. Federal, state, and local laws apply.

Discriminating on the basis of criminal records may be the basis for a race discrimination suit, because minorities have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites do. So convictions for the moral equivilent of jaywalking souldn't be used in most cases. Even more serious offenses have to be looked at on a case by case basis -- type of offense, etc. 

Does that mean that you should give him the information? Only if the law requires it. Just keep in mind that there is almost nothing that is a per se disqualifier, and if you are using criminal records as a per se disqualifier you may have a risk.

"Before we get pitchforks and lynch mobs, possibly there is a need to talk to the local police to find out about the situation. Maybe he committed the crime 20 years ago and is now reformed."

-------------------

You missed the words "repeat offender." If he offended 20 years ago and is still on the list, that tells me the crimeS were heinous. Check out landlord's liability and whether an undisclosed defect/risk in the purchase contract, or tenant estoppel letters, or whatever, let the buyer out. What part of c-o-n-s-u-l-t t-w-o l-a-w-y-e-r-s, one each in criminal/tort law and the other in property law, does anyone on this forum not understand?