AirBnB issues

[Anonymous]

can you link to the proposed legislation? I find it hard to believe the Council would propose to create a tenant’s right to do AirBnB.

[Anonymous]

Checked with some friends on Council staff - this hasn’t formally been proposed yet. Unclear if it is coming from McDuffie, but that seems likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to open a huge loophole for landlords.

No, it's concerning. If my renter is allowed to make money off my property I have a huge issue with that and would be putting this into a lease. If they just want to sublet for when they will be out of town (let's say summer time), I have no issue. But if they are renting my property to then turn it into PROFIT that's a huge issue. Leases can contain clauses about sublets where time for sublet is limited (let's say 30 days or longer) and also tenant isn't allowed to charge anything above whatever the rent is plus percentage extra for amenities/furnishing, etc. I have this in the lease for the place we rent.

It's weird to me that you're focused on them making money off the property--who really cares? If they decorated it beautifully and offered it as a space for photo shoots, would you also kick up a fuss? The real issue is that some of these short term tenants might damage the apartment, and then it would be difficult to triangulate the repair and costs between you, the tenant, and the short term tenant.

This is the real issue. Plus, the owners' insurance is not setup to allow Airbnb through a 3rd party. God forbid the short term Airbnb tenant starts a fire....you really think the landlord's insurer is going to pony up and make them whole? No friggin' way.

I think this would make DC home uninsurable, as the landlord has no control of what's happening when the unit goes into the short-term rental space.

This is such a disaster proposal. My guess is that the Council member's relatives or staff got guff from a landlord who didn't want to allow them to sublet for the summer or over a long vacation. Tough tits.

[Anonymous]

AirBnB renters should have to live onsite when renting out a place.

[Anonymous]

Welp, here's my plan for this. Rent my home to a friend. Have friend AirBNB it. So I hope this goes through because the AirBNB restrictions are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:can you link to the proposed legislation? I find it hard to believe the Council would propose to create a tenant’s right to do AirBnB.

I don’t understand how this would even be possible under a legal lease? The tenant would be effectively subleasing the property which is usually not allowed under the normal terms of a lease. It’s a fundamental change in the use the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can you link to the proposed legislation? I find it hard to believe the Council would propose to create a tenant’s right to do AirBnB.

I don’t understand how this would even be possible under a legal lease? The tenant would be effectively subleasing the property which is usually not allowed under the normal terms of a lease. It’s a fundamental change in the use the property.

DC Council could write a law that states bans on short term sub-leasing - for example, max of 90 days per - are not permissible clauses in leases.

It will definitely get challenged in the courts, because it arguably constitutes a “taking” from the landlord. For example, the landlord would need to get a different and more expensive property insurance policy that would cover STR’s by the tenant.

[Anonymous]

Why should anyone dictate how you use your property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should anyone dictate how you use your property?

Have you ever heard of the zoning code?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to open a huge loophole for landlords.

No, it's concerning. If my renter is allowed to make money off my property I have a huge issue with that and would be putting this into a lease. If they just want to sublet for when they will be out of town (let's say summer time), I have no issue. But if they are renting my property to then turn it into PROFIT that's a huge issue. Leases can contain clauses about sublets where time for sublet is limited (let's say 30 days or longer) and also tenant isn't allowed to charge anything above whatever the rent is plus percentage extra for amenities/furnishing, etc. I have this in the lease for the place we rent.

It's weird to me that you're focused on them making money off the property--who really cares? If they decorated it beautifully and offered it as a space for photo shoots, would you also kick up a fuss? The real issue is that some of these short term tenants might damage the apartment, and then it would be difficult to triangulate the repair and costs between you, the tenant, and the short term tenant.

No. As a former landlord it would be completely crystal clear to me. The ONLY agreement and relationship I have is between myself and my tenant. If the unit gets damaged because my tenant did something stupid by renting it out to someone else that is 100% on the tenant and I will go after the tenant. The tenant needs to pay up. How the tenant does cost recovery between themselves and whoever they rented it out to is zero care or concern of mine. If the tenant can't get their AirBNB visitor to pay I don't care, the tenant still needs to pay regardless.

[Anonymous]

Airbnb has to be one the worst companies ever and theyve absolutely destroyed the rental and home market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Airbnb has to be one the worst companies ever and theyve absolutely destroyed the rental and home market.

You know who is worse? The hotel industry. At some point hotels became prohibitively expensive due to catering specifically to business travelers and only those consumers who earn points through business travel. Meanwhile, a family of five would have to pay full freight at $700 per night for two rooms at a crappy Marriott. Airbnb filled a gap and there were unintended consequences. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should anyone dictate how you use your property?

Have you ever heard of the zoning code?

Yep and those kinds of laws have been around for as long as time. Even the folks who stepped off the Mayflower in 1620 quickly set up laws about what you could and couldn't do with your land, where you needed to keep your livestock et cetera. Amazing how the "freedumb" crowd has zero knowledge of actual history.

[Anonymous]

Without any sources, I call BS. This doesn’t make sense especially since a landlord can easily restrict use of their property via the lease. DC recently restricted Airbnb use to primary residences so why in the world would they only allow people who rent to play host on Airbnb?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to open a huge loophole for landlords.

No, it's concerning. If my renter is allowed to make money off my property I have a huge issue with that and would be putting this into a lease. If they just want to sublet for when they will be out of town (let's say summer time), I have no issue. But if they are renting my property to then turn it into PROFIT that's a huge issue. Leases can contain clauses about sublets where time for sublet is limited (let's say 30 days or longer) and also tenant isn't allowed to charge anything above whatever the rent is plus percentage extra for amenities/furnishing, etc. I have this in the lease for the place we rent.

It's weird to me that you're focused on them making money off the property--who really cares? If they decorated it beautifully and offered it as a space for photo shoots, would you also kick up a fuss? The real issue is that some of these short term tenants might damage the apartment, and then it would be difficult to triangulate the repair and costs between you, the tenant, and the short term tenant.

I care, because as an owner I would rather rent it myself and make more income. I take more risks as a property owner, why am I restricted from making this extra profit by the commie government? It's standard to put clauses into the lease about the rules of subletting, like only long term subletting is allowed - 30 days+ and also how much tenant can charge (e.g. only to break even on their rent). And before you say it's about housing affordability, if you allow tenants to make profit how does this make housing more affordable if they will charge more than market rates? It's the same thing.
Look. If there were no restrictions on property owners I would have no objections. Otherwise, it's government control over property ownership, which really should be illegal.