Your argument is that you wouldn't want to live in a building where the tenants hadn't undergone background checks and credit checks, and that this increases risk. My argument is that they obviously don't do much to protect the host anyway, if plenty of landlords have horror stories. I've talked to every AirBnB host I've stayed with (and I've stayed with a few) about this and not one had anything negative at all to say about their guests.
I would suggest trying AirBnB a little and looking at what the people who actually use the service are like first without worrying about some kind of imagined stranger danger.
Having any short-term renter increases risk versus a long-term renter versus an owner. That's just the nature of the industry.
My point is that as a tenant in a building with an AirBnB host, I have absolutely zero guarantees about what kind of tenants AirBnB hosts take on. Maybe some need the money and are willing to take on people with no reputation scores? I'm willing to trust my building management to take responsibility for screening tenants because if they fail I can sue them and I know they can pay because they are insured.
That's the point you keep dancing around. AirBnB's reputation system might be great. That's irrelevant to me as a tenant in the same building. I don't get to see or have any control over the reputations scores of the people AirBnB hosts in my building take on. The AirBnB host exposes me to a level of risk, he is in total control over that level of risk, and he doesn't carry insurance against that risk. That is a harm to me.
> Your argument is that you wouldn't want to live in a building where the tenants hadn't undergone background checks and credit checks, and that this increases risk.
Not really, my point was with respect to who cares for their property the most: owners > long term renters > short term( 1 week or less) renters
Comments
Your argument is that you wouldn't want to live in a building where the tenants hadn't undergone background checks and credit checks, and that this increases risk. My argument is that they obviously don't do much to protect the host anyway, if plenty of landlords have horror stories. I've talked to every AirBnB host I've stayed with (and I've stayed with a few) about this and not one had anything negative at all to say about their guests.
I would suggest trying AirBnB a little and looking at what the people who actually use the service are like first without worrying about some kind of imagined stranger danger.
Having any short-term renter increases risk versus a long-term renter versus an owner. That's just the nature of the industry.
My point is that as a tenant in a building with an AirBnB host, I have absolutely zero guarantees about what kind of tenants AirBnB hosts take on. Maybe some need the money and are willing to take on people with no reputation scores? I'm willing to trust my building management to take responsibility for screening tenants because if they fail I can sue them and I know they can pay because they are insured.
That's the point you keep dancing around. AirBnB's reputation system might be great. That's irrelevant to me as a tenant in the same building. I don't get to see or have any control over the reputations scores of the people AirBnB hosts in my building take on. The AirBnB host exposes me to a level of risk, he is in total control over that level of risk, and he doesn't carry insurance against that risk. That is a harm to me.
> Your argument is that you wouldn't want to live in a building where the tenants hadn't undergone background checks and credit checks, and that this increases risk.
Not really, my point was with respect to who cares for their property the most: owners > long term renters > short term( 1 week or less) renters