Even after fire escapes were mandated hundreds of people died in a factory fire ( see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_... ). I hope you are wiling to concede that these regulations, while imposing a real burden on businesses and landlords, were designed to correct a real and very persistent problem. Is your position that we would be better to just ignore fire and other safety rules for all hotels?
In light of a clear rationale for such regulations, we must ask why one business should get to play by a different set of rules than another? Free market competition does not work if the only advantage is regulatory arbitrage. That would be like a race between two cars, one that has a 40 mile/hour speed limit, the other no speed limit. Which car would you pick?
The only argument that I would concede is that perhaps AirBnB is closer to an actual bed and breakfast, so those regulations should apply, but I would guess that class of regulation is generally more strict than what they are subject to now.
"Airbnb has also bowed to pressure over planning concerns in residential areas, by agreeing to help enforce annual rental limits. But consumer protection is another emerging issue. David Weston, chairman of the Bed and Breakfast Association, criticises Airbnb for not ensuring compliance with fire regulations. “I think the public assumes some sort of checking if you are booking with a big global brand,” he adds.
"By contrast, members of his association with as few as three letting bedrooms have been required to install fully wired fire alarms and fire doors. “We have had instances of people having to spend thousands of pounds,” he says. “It is extremely galling to find that fast-growing competitors are not complying with anything.”
[...]
"Airbnb rejects criticism of its fire safety measures, saying the Chief Fire Officers Association has confirmed that the advice it offers hosts is proportionate to the requirements of a family home. It encourages hosts to install safety features and, for a limited period, has offered a single free smoke/carbon monoxide detector — although it does not oblige hosts to fit smoke alarms. Its website says hosts have the option to fill out a safety card detailing emergency exit routes and locations of fire extinguishers, but this is not compulsory."
"Proportionate to the requirements of a family home" and "the option to fill out a safety card" do not thrill me as someone who has been run out of a room by a hotel fire.
I would also point out that the is likely asymmetric information here, where, as you point out, consumers either don't know or assume that the fire safety standards are inline with industry norms. Regulation should definitely be designed to correct information imbalances between customer/seller.
This is the typical refrain of people who are trying to pitch pointless red tape; "it's about public safety!"
Of course, 90% of regulations in any given industry have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them. Even those regulations that are nominally intended to increase safety are often counterproductive, and cause more utility loss than they prevent.
> Is your position that we would be better to just ignore fire and other safety rules for all hotels?
Are you really under the impression that the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring fire code? That's insane for multiple reasons, but mostly that all residential buildings (including AirBnBs) have to obey fire code already.
> In light of a clear rationale for such regulations
You're making two false assumptions here; one is that most regulations even nominally have a "clear rationale", and the second is that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't bother to look beyond first-order costs imposed by proposed regulations. It's quite likely that many safety-oriented regulations claim a great deal more lives than they save, since the increased economic burden of those regulations sucks up resources that would otherwise be used on e.g. healthcare or personal enjoyment. On an individual level, the difference is very smal, but multiplied over the millions of people who are affected by the regulation it adds up to a lot of man-hours and lives lost.
> That would be like a race between two cars, one that has a 40 mile/hour speed limit, the other no speed limit. Which car would you pick?
The unlimited car is clearly superior, so you're not exactly helping your own argument here.
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.
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...
The parent post doesn't cite specific numbers about how many regulations were put into place as a direct result of a tragedy but they do directly cite some examples, which you do not.
Nobody (literally, anti-regulation straw man arguments not withstanding) opposes pointless regulation and nobody would be opposed to periodic reviews of existing regulations to ensure they are still applicable. The problem is that anti-regulation arguments tend to demonize nearly all (if not all) regulations as being burdensome. Having arbitrary rules [1] about regulations does nothing for progressing the conversation. If you want to be taken seriously you need to cite examples of these regulations, its easy to find ones that are directly related to past tragedies, it should be as easy to cite your examples?
> Are you really under the impression that the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring fire code? That's insane for multiple reasons, but mostly that all residential buildings (including AirBnBs) have to obey fire code already.
I don't think you are taking into account two things:
1) The fire codes for residential homes and for hotels are very different. It makes sense that they are, they are very different structures but that doesn't mean that people who stay in an AirBnB shouldn't expect some extra safety features like emergency lighting and more smoke alarms, fire extinguishers etc. If you were staying on the 2nd floor of a house that you did not live in and there was a fire and there was no power or emergency lighting or exit signs or fire extinguishers and only 1 smoke alarm on the other side of the house and you had to find your way out in the complete dark how would you feel?
2. There are a lot of grandfathered-in houses out there that have 1 fire alarm, no CO alarm and totally out of date electrical wiring. These same big old houses also have a high chance of being the kind of place that is used as an AirBnB (in my experience).
There is (like always) a reasonable middle-ground here - AirBnB's should be subject to more regulation than normal homes because a howeowner (unlike a tenant) knows the home, has chosen to live there and accepted the possible risks and has the opportunity to ensure the home is up to current codes (even if it is grandfathered in). However it makes little sense to apply the same regulations a huge hotel building with massive occupancy with a (typically) 1 to 2 story structure that you could likely escape much easier due to the size and due to the fact that a worst-case scenario has a much lower deathtoll (even if a single death is a tragedy).
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/11/22/donald-tru...
I would add in support of your argument that AirBnB should not have an economic advantage as a result of the different regulations. I do think commerce benefits from having fair and equal playing field / rules and suffers when companies can benefit from regulator arbitrage.
> "This is a typical refrain.." Saying this is a common refrain doesn't make it false. It just shows that you have no counter argument...
> "Of course, 90% of regulations have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with sustaining the bureaucracy that created them... Do you have any actual support for this premise? Read the thesis I cited, read almost legislative history for any safety regulation and you will see regulators citing specific data on harm to safety and how the regulation would improve safety. For that matter google a basic traffic study for an intersection and you will see the same type of analysis. Please don't pretend that regulators and law makers don't give a shit or try to do their jobs well; our institutions, and the people that run them do care and to a good job. I think the progress humanity is better now that it was when these institutions did not exist. They are not perfect, but the cynical view that they are solely focused on preserving their own position is not consistent with easily verifiable evidence of their intent expressed in writing. I would also note that many government employees could make more in the private sector which implies they are incentivized by some other means.
Further, you have the causality exactly backwards. Regulations and related bureaucracy are created to address a problem, and will continue to exist as long as that problem exists. There were no nuclear regs/bureaucrats before there was nuclear technology. Should we get rid of the city fire department the second there isn't a fire in a city? Or the military the minute we are not at war?
However, I will acknowledge that you are right that bureaucracy can become entrenched, and we should protect against that by insuring proper legislative, judicial and executive oversight. We should also set up other necessary checks and balances, and create cultural norms that prevent individual and systematic corruption. Your answer, to just eliminate regulations, wont solve this problem it will just shift the power and corruption to the private bureaucracy of corporations.
> "Are you really under the impression the competitive advantage of AirBnB comes from ignoring the fire code?..." Yes, it is my position that AirBnB has a cost advantage relative to hotels because it doesn't have to (i) comply with regulations, including but not limited to, fire regulations, (ii) pay taxes to compensate for the maintenance of government provided infrastructure that experiences increased wear and tear as result of higher traffic and use of public services (like fire and ambulances), (iii) doesn't have to cover liability insurance for injury experienced buy guests because it doesn't own the property.
> "You're making two false assumptions, one is that most regulations... have a "clear rationale"..." Read the court cases and legislative sessions where these regulations are debated in depth and tell me that there isn't a "clear rationale" when they are enacted. They often have detailed statistical reports.
> "...second...that regulations that appear to have clear rationales to some self-interested regulatory group actually do. Most people, including regulators, don't...look beyond first order costs..."
What evidence do you have to support that regulators don't look beyond first-order costs? Or are you just making that up?
You are right that some regulations have unintended consequences; and when that happens, regulators should collect data, design a superior regulation and change it. That happens all the time and I would support such a process. What is your alternative? To get rid of all regulation and only focus on maximizing utility? That would result in an absurd outcome where there is no law and there are not enforceable contracts because every law and every contract imposes a cost to utility of some party.
Let's get one thing straight, I am not arguing all regulation is good. I am arguing that if society has determined that a regulation is necessary, then ALL parties should follow the same rules, that's it. If society revises a regulation in light of unintended costs, then great.
> "the unlimited car..." You are ignoring the purpose of my argument. My point is that pretending like AirBnB / Uber are superior to traditional competitors because they offer better service rather than competing unfairly by ignoring regulations (and their associated costs) is like saying a car with an unlimited speed limit is faster than on that has to obey 40mile/hour; it is ignoring the essential question which are: which car will win a race with the same rules. If commerce is a competition, companies need to compete with the same rules or we are guaranteeing victory for anyone that breaks the law.
