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
This!
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:03am
Read it again! Anon speaks wisdom here.
I disagree.
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 2:13am
I don't think that is what and how city council wants to regulate.
If you read what I wrote you
By Anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:34am
If you read what I wrote you would have seen that I said I am sure that is not what she wants... but I have looked at the information available to me and this is what I see. Laws are not written for short periods of time, they will still be there when Michelle Wu is gone. They will still be there when some board is trying to figure out what the rules are and suddenly decide you can't post room mate vacancies on Facebook anymore.
This is like being mad someone is using Kleenex to clean the dishes in the kitchen so you regulate Kleenex across the whole apartment. When I go to wipe my nose with a Kleenex in the bathroom I could be breaking the rule... meanwhile my room mate bought generic store brand one time use hand tissues and is now using those to clean the dishes.
My request with this short term rental thing is:
Time tables be determined
Definition beyond "Air bnb" be used
I'd ban all rentals too
By BlackKat
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 5:42am
The reason people are also going after the technology is they don't want ANY short termers near them - and that definition is very loose. It doesn't matter if it's a revolving door of AirBnB guests, some student who is still driving a car with CT plates and is there for 1-4 years, or a renter who has been there for 10 years. People who are owner occupants want their buildings and neighborhoods to be owner occupied in full or at least well over 50%.
I don't get it.
By DazedByTheBell
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 7:02pm
At the risk of being the sole contrarian here...how exactly was Councillor Wu insulted? I read the email. The spin here is dizzying.
Saying an elected official has the same policy objectives as a corporate interest ISN'T saying the official is taking money from a corporate interest.
Certainly, let's argue the merits of the regulations, but I don't get the pearl clutching and agita here.
Airbnb false claims
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 9:11pm
Airbnb sent an email to their customers who live in Boston (not just people who list their properties but people who used an Airbnb in Hawaii once) and made a false claim about Michelle Wu proposed regulations. City Councilors Wu and Lydia and Ed and Josh back affordable rent and home ownership. This study shows how short term rental market is driving up rent and housing.
More here, here and here and here
False claim?
By DazedByTheBell
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 11:51pm
I read the email. I read the ordinance.
The email points out 3 specific claims about the ordinance:
1) That people won't be able to rent for longer than 30 days at a stretch
2) That only homeowners can rent space
3) That abutters will have to be notified
My read of the ordinance is that these are factually correct.
So what are the false claims? What am I missing? You just link to the ordinance and make a blanket statement, and point me to studies that argue that short term housing drives up costs.
I just want to know which of these specific claims are wrong about the actual ordinance.
You're looking at the wrong thing.
By boo_urns
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 9:55am
It's in the main post from Adam:
Saying she is unaligned with the interests of regular Bostonians is laughable to anyone who is familiar with Wu. It's trying to frame her in a very dishonest way. It also doesn't say outright that she actively sided with hotels, but it's essentially implying that she's being lobbied by them, and successfully. There's room for imagination in the way that they wrote it and they knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish with that.
Saying she is unaligned with
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:04am
I don't think its all that clear that a majority of Bostonians would be for this regulation.
For those who have used AirBnb (not in Boston) or have lent their place out, there is no reason for them to limit AirBnb's overreaching.
If this reg was on the ballot, it would be interesting what the outcome would be
"the majority of Bostonians"
By lbb
Thu, 04/19/2018 - 9:37am
And you think that's "the majority of Bostonians"?
Sounds reasonable
By Daan
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:13am
These requirements are reasonable. If a person has to rent a short term for 30 days there are plenty of other options. I can speak to experience concerning that issue. This applies a disincentive to turn housing into what in effect is a hotel. If a person wants to run a hotel or B&B then they are welcome to go through the same steps that every other B&B and hotel operator goes through, including paying the same taxes - which benefits us, the resident of the city.
I don't want to live next to an apartment building which is operating as effectively a B&B. I want stable neighbors; not people who come and go without committing anything to making the area one they enjoy living in. I don't write as abutter but as a neighbor. If the unit is in a large condo building however I can see notifying abutters. Knowing that a nearby unit is used for temporary residences let's closely residing neighbors know that the people who are coming and going have less interest in taking care of the unit they are temporarily living in. It also lets residents know to be more on guard. I am less trustful of a situation where there are temporary occupants than where there are permanent neighbors.
As for short term costs how can this not increase short term costs? Basic capitalism: supply and demand. If the supply of permanent housing decreases while the demand remains the same or increase then the monetary value of the supply will inevitably increase as the people seeking the permanent housing are more willing. As a study pointing out that principle I offer capitalism in the United States.
Bad Look
By Fitz
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 7:02pm
A very bad look for AirBnB. Don't misrepresent what is being proposed since it's pretty easily debunked. Argue on facts, not fake news. This will blow up in their faces.
AirBnB is the new Uber
By anon
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 7:39pm
Rough and disrespectul. Do you approve @bchesky Brian Joseph Chesky?
airbnb is bad news - unless you like hookers
By bostondriver
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:40pm
I was chatting up a girl in a local establishment to come to find out she was in from LA to meet 'clients' and was at airbnb just around the corner..... That's as far as it went for me.
So...
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 11:24pm
AirBnb is good news?
No!
By bostondriver
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 7:51am
This is good example of how organized crime will use unregulated temporary housing. Airbnb's should be taxed and heavily regulated - Wu does not go far enough IMO. There are good reasons for zoning laws, people just forgot about them. I have 0 sympathy for people who airbnb their units and get heavily taxed - they should get taxed. Hotels are not supposed to be in residential neighborhoods.
Organized crime?
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:10am
Okay, then make prostitution not a crime.
Society is a lot easier than people make it.
"Hotels are not supposed to be in residential neighborhoods"
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:12am
So...destroy the one which just got built in Cleveland Circle? I don't know, man, people worked really hard on that.
That's not residential
By Waquiot
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 10:46am
Now on the other side of the tracks, in Brookline, yup, that hotel would be out of character, but where it is is a commercial area.
Some other entity can call it commercial
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:08am
But if I can hit a residence with a golf ball, it's residential.
Depends
By Waquiot
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 6:18pm
I've never seen you drive a golf ball.
You could probably hit a golf ball from the Top of the Prudential and hit a row house in the South End. That don't put the Prudential in a residential area.
Edit- I left a key word out in the first sentence. I’ve never even met Will, though I think I’ve seen a photograph of him.
If you've seen me drive a golf ball
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:33pm
You're either
1) My friend from middle school with whom I patronized a driving range once or
2) Were a guest at a wedding I attended in 2001 in Vermont
Because those are the two and only two times in my life I've driven a golf ball. And seeing how you told me two weeks ago that you have a kid, you're not #1.
Sheesh it's one thing to
By James Constanti...
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:02am
Sheesh it's one thing to write a news article informing readers of AirBnb efforts,
but this article's headline and it's hate for AirBnb is no better than airbnb's efforts to stop this legislation. "Slime", and "role in destroying entire neighborhoods"? Fire your copy editor.
Adam, You heard the man
By MrButch
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 9:37am
Fire yourself. That's the only way.
Loving the shade
By anon
Wed, 04/18/2018 - 12:05pm
Never stop, Adam
Pages
Add comment