To expand on your point, I have friends who have been occupying a nearly 100 year old house for 30+ years who in the last 2 or 3 started renting it on AirBnB. I lived there while in college for a few years as well. It had live knob-and-tube wiring [1] whose asbestos sheathing had long since flaked off or were ready to flake off at the slightest touch and many other not-even-close-to-current-code issues that were 100% legal due to it being grandfathered in. When doing renovations (prior to being an AirBnB) a lot of these issues were fixed but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this.
Unfortunately it varies it seems whether or not BnB's (air or not) are subject to extra regulation, even if its not the same as a large hotel.
Exactly. Any house that has not been renovated recently enough to adopt modern safety regs is unmarketable.
> but had the city not forced them to add extra exit lights and fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, people would have been staying there with absolutely no idea about any of this.
So you're complaint is that in a hypothetical universe where rennovations didn't involve bringing buildings up to code, AirBnBs would be unsafe? That's true, but irrelevant. We don't live in that universe.
Of course, this doesn't really matter since as has been stated by myself and others: normal building codes that are sufficient for a homeowner are not necessarily sufficient for other occupants who are paying to stay a night there, but your logic is terribly flawed anyways and it must be pointed out.
Only because there is (i) enough modern housing stock (with safety reg compliance) to provide other options, (ii) knowledge sufficiently available for the public to know the difference, (iii) strict and consistent enforcement to over come the collective action problem.
I would welcome any evidence or analysis showing a free market would create sufficient incentive for home builders and landlords to voluntarily adopt this level/kind of fire or personal safety standards. To me the market would clearly incentive most structures be build at the lowest cost. I would gladly stand correct, I don't have enough knowledge to know what the facts would support.
You are just straight up incorrect. No two ways about it. I'm actually a little surprised someone could have this little exposure to the residential regulatory bureaucracy. Maybe that's why you can support it.
Here are some (not all) of the residential building codes that apply here.
https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/single-family/training/docs/14...