Airbnb makes nice in Hong Kong, not in Boston
Make no mistake – Short-term rental companies benefit from an unregulated industry. The threat of regulation creates problems for them though, especially if these are look to crack down in a way that hurts their revenues.
To be fair, Airbnb has been relatively cooperative with local councils and states – relative to other STR sites, but that isn’t saying much. As the biggest player Airbnb gets the spotlight and is often the sole target of regulation (a narrow focus that always backfires, with illegal activity just moving to other sites). Airbnb in particular has been proactive lately in Australia. It knows regulation is inevitable, so it tries to shape the regulation in its interests, like any company would, via lobbying and PR.
Here’s an example of their same approach in Hong Kong. Airbnb is proposing a simple registration scheme and to push hosts to commit to safety measures. It sounds great, except it’s far too light a touch. We’ve seen in London, New Orleans, New York and lots of other cities now what happens with light regulation with lax enforcement – the rules get ignored. How can any site confirm safety measures are being adhered to? These sites can’t even ensure max booking periods are being enforced. A “simple registration system” isn’t going to keep up with the professionals now making a fortune off these sites. Short-term rental sites favour light touch regulation because it suits them, not because it’s good for the community. Councils need smart regulation, not light regulation.
On the flip side, in Boston things have turned nasty. Airbnb has criticised Boston’s plans to ban investment units from being used as short-term rentals. Boston is planning to let owner-occupiers rent out rooms without limit, but not if they don’t live there. Sounds sensible, right? It’s very much a good first step to improve rental availability. But while these sites talk a lot about how many listings they have from owner-occupiers, the dirty secret is that most of their booking revenue probably comes from investment units. That’s because professionals just make more money than part-time amateur.
One problem with Boston’s plan though – It’s already been tried in NYC, and it’s damn hard to enforce. How can you prove someone is or isn’t in the property when it’s rented out? It’s not as simple as banning “entire apartment” listings. The professional hosts are smart enough to work around that. But still, a good first step, and if combined with a smart monitoring solution (like BnbGuard’s), it will do much to help Boston’s problems of rental availability, house prices and “quasi-hotels”.
