Comment by nsmartt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsmartt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Because AirBnB is illegal?

No, but the fact that it's illegal to rent out a building I own for a few weeks while I'm on vacation is another paper cut among the many I have already received when researching NY and NYC government. This wouldn't affect me directly (as I've said, living there was ruled out), but I don't approve. It does, therefore, influence my inclination to visit. If this were the only issue, it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I'd just declare it as unfortunate and visit for longer than 29 days to avoid legal issues.

>Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings

I agree with this, but this sounds like a problem to be handled by the owner of the establishment, not a problem to be handled by government.

>renters lose out on available space

Only if those renters are offering places for short term visits anyway. I have no idea whether that's a common scenario, but leasers are hardly missing out because I'm renting out an extra room.

>would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?

I probably wouldn't, but I still don't consider it to be the government's job to ensure that it isn't happening.

> I agree with this, but this sounds like a problem to be handled by the owner of the establishment, not a problem to be handled by government.

Even hard core libertarian recognize one function of government it to enforce contracts. Without the government stepping in, what do you suggest? Have Boris from Brighton Beach enforce the contract?

Isn't eviction the answer to a violation of my lease? I haven't suggested that the government shouldn't enforce contracts. Only that I don't see the need for there to be a law governing what I can do with my own property. I'm not even sure this is a very libertarian stance.

You can't evict someone that owns the apartment they are air'ing out. (What is the correct verb for this? Anyone know? Airbnb'ing? Air'ing?) Even in a coop it is incredibly difficult to make that move, if not impossible.

If they own it, I assert that they have the right to "air it out", as you put it, regardless of my own objections. This is the same issue I have with regulated lawn maintenance.

That's why we have courts. You take a problem to court when it becomes a problem. You don't punish an entire city for something some people might or even will do.

Is there not a point where we can say "this is so often and so prevalently a problem, let's disallow it".

You could, but then you would be limiting personal freedoms for those that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that flies in the face of everything this country and its constitution stand for. One of these days it will be your favorite thing (large sodas, salt, what's next, NYC?) that is outlawed because someone else might be causing a problem with it.

Well, I don't live in the US anyway, but I think there has to be a trade off in a civilised society because we have a huge volume of history telling us that without these sorts of restrictions people get screwed over at every turn.

Some of my favourite things are illegal and I will lobby to get the laws in those areas changed where I don't think that the potential negative impact on society is too great.

Outcomes are important, not just principles.

I get where you're coming from. And I get the logic of your argument. But history has also shown us, time and again, that when you give one or more people power they will abuse it, even if intentions were originally good (you need only to look at your nearest government to find abuse of power). Also one person's definition of negative is often not the same as another's (and when you have 350 million people with different opinions, you are certain to have disagreement). The big question is, who gets to make the decision about who's definition of "bad" is right? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have salt, or drink more than 16oz of soda, or own pistol magazines with a capacity of more than 7 rounds with which to defend my life, or profit from property I own? When I have committed no crime, who has the right to compel me to do these things? In my opinion, it's a massive overreach, plain and simple.

Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.

> leasers are hardly missing out because I'm renting out an extra room.

It's not just you though. If the owner of the room has decided that it's more profitable to just use the room as a hotel room rather than leasing (which is very possible in many situations) then the room is effectively off the market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com