Hey, there! Log in / Register
Airbnb tries to slime Boston city councilor instead of discussing its role in destroying entire neighborhoods
By adamg on Tue, 04/17/2018 - 4:38pm
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
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Is the headline slanted? You bet
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?
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.
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
Wu has been bought by Big Patel.
Perhaps you can add some
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
I think these jackasses have her confused with Shirley.
She IS Aligned with Hotel Workers
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
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
What you're trying to say in this comment or on the topic at large.
I'll help you
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hmmm.
Where do you say you live, again?
When did I say I didn't like it?
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
How cute you think $800 for a bedroom is reasonable
Illiteracy Day
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,
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
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?
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?
I can go for it on fourth down. Do you understand American football?
I think you may have meant:
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
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
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
I guess, but, the big hotel chains seem not to have that much trouble adhering to different local regulations.
Big hotel, big difference
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
AirBnB is facilitating tax evasion and people running unlicensed / un-inspected businesses at the least.
Whose fault is that
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
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
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
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
But I still caught you. Rule of law. Dollar in the jar.
yawn
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
I can prove that the rule of law exists.
What a load of BS
"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
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
Nothing is stopping you from putting a clause against it in the lease.
Yes, and...
What if you already have a lease in place?
or..
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
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
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.
I do
And if they do it, its a long arduous process to evict. In fact, almost all leases have subletting rules, and just look at the existing laws for breaking a lease in MA - you can find a new tenant/sublet, but the landlord still has to agree/screen and find them acceptable. I mean, its basically running a boarding house/illegal hotel which can also be against mortgage terms (such as anything under the FHA), too.
Thank you. A thousand times thank you
I get weary from calling out the deliberately deceptive phrases "car sharing" and "home sharing" every time I see them
Okay
Sue for libel. Ball's in your court, Wu.
Has she complained?
Nothing in this story claims she's trying to silence the AirBNB.
Would that be
Because AirBnb is right?
I don't think you understand
I don't think you understand how libel works....
Perhaps not
Again, I would have said IANAL, but I don't want anybody to misinterpret that.
I'm sure Airbnb is not the
I'm sure Airbnb is not the only factor in these neighborhoods being destroyed. I mean the many many years of gentrification and loss of affordable housing would in my opinion be way more detrimental than airbnb
You'd Be Surprised
In many neighborhoods, entire apartment buildings are being converted to Airbnbs, driving up the rental and condo markets even higher than "gentrification." They are spreading faster into formerly "affordable" neighborhoods like East Boston and Dorchester. Every Airbnb unit robs that neighborhood of a permanent single resident, couple, or family. It adds up.
Walsh is stalling on regulation because his rich pals (such as Sandra Edgerly & co.) are pressuring him. Edwards and Wu's proposal is excellent: fair to individual homeowners who want extra income, while protecting neighbors, and whole neighborhoods, from large-scale investors who ignore residential zoning and turn housing into hotel rooms. They worked with a lot of neighborhood groups to get it right. However, we also have councillors like Baker and Flynn, who either don't or won't get it — because they're not very bright, are inside someone's pocket, or both.
Map
There's an ADCO map of AirBnbs downtown, lit up like a Christmas tree, and this was from last summer. More units are converted every day, apparently:
http://www.adco.rocks/zoning-vs-actual/
Map is junk
Just taking a quick look at the map and it has some issues. In the North End alone, it shows 4 units in the Coast Guard station, one at the adjacent pool and one in the ice rink down the street. Not sure how the map was generated but it doesn’t look right.
That is by malificent design
Many posters on the AirBnB site do not put actual address into the system so that they can not be readily found out by IRS, unit owners, or condo associations or other persons who would not be happy to learn their "neighbor" was using a unit in their building for short terming.
Interesting map...
It shows four units for rent in the Granary Burial Ground and two in the Public Garden.
Make way for visiting ducklings?
Read
above.
As a FYI Flynn Stands with WU and EDWARDS
Point of clarification, Councilor Ed Flynn supported the amendments and supports Wu and Edwards.
Airbnb is helping drive the loss of affordable housing
If you're attempting to buy a condo that you plan to live in, it's hard to compete with companies that buy them as investments to rent short term like Airbnb - can make more money than having fixed annual tenants. They can pay cash, no restrictions, etc. This in turn drives up the comps for the area, raising the "worth" of the rest of the available stock. This is one of the listed reasons they're trying to regulate this unregulated rental market.
That right there is a nice summary
The problem isn't AirBnB specifically, it's that the property is worth a lot more as a short-term rental than it is as a family dwelling unit. And a lot of the land is more valuable as a place to build office towers than it is as a place to build houses. Sometimes the people of a city find that policy objectives (such as, for example, "we want to have a residential downtown" require limiting the otherwise free market, which is what Boston did. I personally think it worked well. The free market is generally a good thing, but it isn't to be worshiped slavishly at the cost of everything else.
Gentrification.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"AirSleaze&Seize"
Boston is being "AirB&B'd"
There is a huge hole in all
There is a huge hole in all these regulations in that they attack technology but not the action. I have friends who literally will use Air Bnb to rent places for 3 months to 2 years at a time. They work on projects that bring them to different places and it used to be very hard for them to get places to stay, now they love Air Bnb. How is that any different than using a real estate agent to facilitate the rentals instead?
What seems to be missing from these items is the concept of time on the other side of the dice. If they are not careful they could make it illegal to rent via electronic medium completely. They could put immigrants who just need a place for 9 months out of luck.
Forget about big hotel, this benefits real estate agents if it is followed through fully. As it will make anything short of a standard 1 year lease via a real estate agent suspect.
I know this is not what the Councillor wants but by focusing on the brand and the technology they run the risk of creating this problem when in reality ANYONE who rents their home out in mini increments should be treated the same way. They need to look at PTown to see how to do it.
This!
Read it again! Anon speaks wisdom here.
I disagree.
I don't think that is what and how city council wants to regulate.
If you read what I wrote you
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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"
And you think that's "the majority of Bostonians"?
Sounds reasonable
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
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
Rough and disrespectul. Do you approve @bchesky Brian Joseph Chesky?
airbnb is bad news - unless you like hookers
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...
AirBnb is good news?
No!
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?
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"
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
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
But if I can hit a residence with a golf ball, it's residential.
Depends
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
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
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
Fire yourself. That's the only way.
Loving the shade
Never stop, Adam