The difference between AirBnB and YouTube is obvious. There are vast arrays of ways in which the average person can use YouTube without any question that such uses are legal.
Conversly, there are very few ways in which the average person - whether renter or rented, can use AirBnB in a way that is unquestionably legal. Few local jurisdictions allow the sort of transactions AirBnB is built upon facilitating, and even fewer allow such use without at least some minimal regulatory oversight such as business licenses and tax reporting.
The reason is the same as for other land use issues, adjoining and nearby properties are effected and real property cannot be moved. Transient lodging uses place unique stresses on a community, and their benefits tend not to accrue to nearby properties with orthogonal uses.
The better analogy would be Craigslist if Craigslist only advertised prostitution related material. Then we would stop pretending that there is wide spread legality and focus in on whether existing laws make sense, and striving to change them where they don't.
grellas writes:
> When you get to such cases, you arrive at the intersection of law with public policy.
you replied:
> The better analogy would be Craigslist if Craigslist only advertised prostitution related material.
My, what a big hammer you have! We've now equated avoidance of hospitality taxes on a legal and moral scale with facilitating prostitution. I'm all for the rule of law, but these days that means keeping as close an eye on the law itself as for potential lawbreakers.
Your big hammer, of course, completely dodges the nuance that grellas was getting to. Laws are created and implemented in a context. What we'be seen in recent decades with the MP3 revolution, Uber, YouTube, and ostensibly services like AirBnB are business models that are matched poorly to existing law and precedent. That is, the context has changed. Neither extreme -- throwing out The Law entirely, nor draconian implmentation of The Law -- is really a suitable response in most cases. I think Uber is a particularly relevant example, as it's been thrust directly into the midst of innovating in an existing class of business, occasionally at odds with local laws, regulations, and incumbent businesses.
To this situation, AirBnB has put forth its case that it facilitates uptake of temporarily vacant lodgings. There are good arguments as to the social benefit this provides. Imagine where AirBnB and similar services are so successful that they curb construction of dedicated hotel space. As a society we've then managed to curb unnecessary resource use. I would argue that truly occasional use of the service in this regard has little to no impact on the associated community.
However, I also agree with your comments about transient lodging and its impacts on communities. There've been a few good essays on this problem in the NYC area in recent years, but from the angle of transient owners. IMO, The Man Who Doesn't Exist falls clearly into the category of "transient facilitator". There's not even the ostensible intent to live in these properties, damn the excess, but just to use them as part of a business strategy. And there's our nuance. Some users of AirBnB are engaging in activity that steps over the line. But the law currently doesn't have any nuance to distinguish between AirBnB's stated business model and the occasional "transient facilitator" using the service.
And thus the earthquakes at the fault line between law and society's shifts rolls on.
The difference between AirBnB and YouTube is obvious. There are vast arrays of ways in which the average person can use YouTube without any question that such uses are legal.
Conversly, there are very few ways in which the average person - whether renter or rented, can use AirBnB in a way that is unquestionably legal. Few local jurisdictions allow the sort of transactions AirBnB is built upon facilitating, and even fewer allow such use without at least some minimal regulatory oversight such as business licenses and tax reporting.
The reason is the same as for other land use issues, adjoining and nearby properties are effected and real property cannot be moved. Transient lodging uses place unique stresses on a community, and their benefits tend not to accrue to nearby properties with orthogonal uses.
The better analogy would be Craigslist if Craigslist only advertised prostitution related material. Then we would stop pretending that there is wide spread legality and focus in on whether existing laws make sense, and striving to change them where they don't.