Option for Airbnb regulation

What you’re saying makes a lot of sense … in theory.

But you have to ask yourself why, despite having the largest number of apartment buildings in the country in their bailiwick, City of Sydney Council proposed the policy that could soon be the backbone of holiday letting legislation: that holiday lets be “complying developments” . 

The simple answer is that they – and all the other councils that currently turn a blind eye to illegal holiday lets – don’t have the resources to police any licensing that might be brought in.  And because of the nature of the beast – too many people operating outside the law at the same time –  the revenue is unlikely to cover the additional cost.

Airbnb hosts operate outside planning laws in this state (and many others), just as Uber did with taxi licensing laws.  The explosion of online holiday letting – something like 23,000 listings in Sydney at the moment – has caught the authorities with their pants down.

So we have a bunch of Airbnb hosts that have been given “permission” by social media to breach planning and strata by-laws. Airbnb pays lip service to their hosts being compliant with local laws but they do absolutely zero when they get evidence that planning laws or by-laws have been breached, except to dob in the complainer to the miscreant.

So, bring in a licensing system and you will have more people breaching than paying the licence.  In short, the bigger the problem, the less money you will have to fund counter measures.

Also, the usage of online holiday letting agencies is incredibly localised around the inner city, beach and harbourside suburbs.  This means that the majority of NSW MPs won’t give a hoot, because it doesn’t affect them.  However, local councils could fear that any major push against holiday letting could be a big vote loser if they are expected to disrupt the mythical hug-fest that Airbnb and its ilk purport to be.

In other words, who wants to be the nasty guy taking the free money from “ordinary people” who are just paying off their student loans, saving up so they can have children or buy Auntie Mabel a new wooden leg.

So while what you are suggesting makes eminent sense, it represents something that could cost councils a lot of money and votes.  Let’s not forget that it was the threat of massive fines to illegal B&Bs in the inner west that prompted the government inquiry in the first place.

That’s why many councils have quietly imposed a moratorium on pursuing illegal holiday lets.  What happened to those million-dollar fines?  When was the last time you heard of someone being breached for running holiday lets in a residential zone?  It’s not like they are hard to find.

Councils don’t want to have a bar of this because it’s too hard.  There is a compelling argument for leaving things the way they are and letting councils enforce their own planning regulations.  But they don’t want to and we can’t make them and that’s why I believe licensing isn’t even on the table. 

The only truly effective way is for individual buildings to be able to choose for themselves and police it accordingly.  After all, they will have to do that anyway under proposed legislation, so they may as well enforce their own rules rather than some cockamamie half-baked notion cooked up in Macquarie St to keep a bunch of American billionaires happy.

By the way, I think the government’s keenness to validate illegal beahviour by changing the laws to accommodate it could come back to bite them on the bum.

If enough people can ignore road traffic and planning laws, and strata by-laws, to get the law changed in their favour, how likely is it that owners corporations will start cutting off power and access keys on even less dubious grounds than the holiday let landlords used when they set up in the first place?

@c_mcph said:
I’m still left with a couple of questions about the way you and other journalists write about Airbnb.  Firstly, if you believe that Council ownership of short-term rental management is ‘makes a lot of sense’ then why did you not list it as one of the options in your article explaining the down sides it brings?  You gave 5 very detailed options but left out a major one.

Because is is not, so far as I know, being seriously discussed and that’s because councils have made it clear they aren’t interested.

Secondly, I understand why Airbnb continually represent themselves as ‘mum and dad making some extra cash’, by why do journalist not talk about the people buying units for Airbnb exclusively? 

I do and I have, somewhere in the 25 articles I have written about Airbnb and which they have complained about.  Other journalists may have been seduced by the whole free money myth but I can’t speak for them. 

Regarding your other comments, I have heard anecdotally from building managers that 19 out of 20 airbnb rentals are absolutely fine but the 20th will be an absolute horror-show.  That one bad apple can have a very deleterious effect on the rest of the strata barrel.

@c_mcph said:
(Perhaps a bad example cos they haven’t licenced Uber)  

Yes they have – or at least they have allowed it and are charging them extra Road Tax for doing so.

Read my column in the Herald tomorrow – it explains the difference between Uber and Airbnb.

@c_mcph said:
Sorry to sound like I was telling you how to do your job but I see leaving out council obligations as dropping the ball if you write an article about options for handling Airbnb. It’s not just my opinion that this is a council responsibility. 

I am going to say this once more and then I’m shutting this down – and it’s not because I want to end the discussion but because of your insulting choice of words and refusal to respond to what I am saying rather than what you want to hear.

Trust me, if I wanted to limit your “free speech”, all your posts would have already gone.

I explained previously that my article was about options that were being discussed. As far as I know, the idea of somehow persuading councils to do what, I agree, is their legal duty has not been discussed in any significant way. 

Why?  Probably because it’s already not working and the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

How do I know this?  Because I am in regular contact with the three government ministers at the heart of the new legislation.

I am also certain of this because councils have made it clear to parliament that they are not interested in policing this out-of-control cash grab by apartment residents. 

I don’t dispute that councils have a duty and I don’t dispute that they have failed to exercise it.  I have already explained the probable reason why that is the case.

If you can’t accept the facts, that’s really not my problem, but I would be “dropping the ball” if I pretended increased council activity was a real option. Maybe it should be, but it’s not.  

You can quote all the legislation you like, but look around you.  Name one instance of someone being pinged for running illegal short-term lets in Sydney in the past year.

Also, only a couple of councils made submissions to the Coure inquiry.  One was from the Byron Bay area that has its own problems, the other was from City of Sydney, washing their hands of the whole airbnb problem and handing it back to the government.

Now, THAT is dropping the ball and if you have a problem with that, take it up with Clover Moore and her hipster policy wonks.