Hacker News Reader

Comment by mantraxC | Hacker News Reader

If you want to avoid the moral hazard of tenants subletting their apartment, and the owners being screwed, you need a mechanism for the contract (which disallows subletting) to be enforced.

So how do you effectively enforce that? Should the owner have cameras in the hallway? Should the tenants be subject to random checks? some balance has to be found to keep both sides happy.

The other question is why are tenants going through the trouble and risks of subletting. And this guy knows why:

http://moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/toodamnhigh....

You might notice Airbnb has virtually no presence (relatively) in countries where the rent is lower, especially in relation to people's income.

View on HN

The rent is too damn high. But it's not being helped by Airbnb. When "spare" housing is converted to short-term rentals then rental units remain near capacity, and rents continue to rise. The traditional scenario is that apartments remained empty, thus increasing the supply of available housing, and putting downward pressure on rent prices.

No, Airbnb isn't helping rent prices, but it is helping people who sublet their apartments via Airbnb pay their rent more easily while making it harder for everyone else. Another negative externality.

Yeah, I suspect cities are going to start banning for-profit full-time subletting, especially in cities with rent control. It'd be a shame if more reasonable use cases get swept up in that.

Of note: in NYC, it is already illegal according to most leases, and short-term leases are illegal for home-owners unless they reside in the home at the same time.

I get your point, but housing isn't like ice-cream. You can't just decide you don't want ice-cream because it's too expensive.

The alternative is living on the street, which brings with itself inability to maintain employment and so on down the spiral. It's literally better not to eat for a few days, than it is to find yourself on the street with all your stuff. A point of no return.

So the incentive to seek "tricks" is high (whether it be Airbnb, or living with 5-6 other people in a small apartment), and demand is dictated purely by how many people are there needing to rent, versus how much money they have.

Housing isn't an all or nothing decision. You can always opt for something smaller, in a worse neighborhood, or outside the metro area ... requiring a longer commute. The impact that Airbnb has is that transient visitors are utilizing real estate zoned for longer-term residential use instead of booking stays in hotels. Hotels are upset because they're losing business to an entity not subject to the same regulations and oversight they're subjected to. But more-importantly, long-term residents of a city are impacted by a shortage of available real estate because they're looking to sign a year long lease ... not move from Airbnb rental to Airbnb rental from week to week.

I understand what you're saying with your ice cream analogy, but I'm not sure I agree that it relates to housing in the way you suggest.

It may not matter if the owners catch their tenants subletting anyway. In some places it's nigh-impossible to evict, for any reason.

simple. Like someone suggested here. Have an opt-out for landlords.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com