Originally Posted by
Perche
Marriott, Intercontinental, and Hilton are the three biggest corporations that hold themselves out as hotels, in that order. AirBnb holds itself out as a third party website that simply links owners leaving their apartments for a week or two while on vacation or on a business trip, with people seeking a place to stay.
Since they masquerade as a website and not a hotel chain, they don't play by the rules, and have documented ill effects. That's why cities from Barcelona to Berlin, San Francisco to Manhattan, have passed bills to regulate them.
On the AirBnb website when you book an apartment there is a room fee, a "cleaning fee," and a "service fee." No tax fee. Florence required them to add the tax fee to the website in their area.
In other words, the largest hotel chain in the world doesn't pay any taxes, because it holds itself out as just a website, and claims that the "owner" is responsible for collecting and paying the tax.
This is where I agree Airbnb is not legitimate. The model they typically cite is eBay. But if I want to buy something on eBay, I don't send eBay a "service fee," eBay doesn't act as a currency exchange service and charge a usurious foreign exchange fee.
The other model Airbnb can cite is Best Western. Again, as a customer, I have no financial transactions with Best Western. Airbnb is a listing service, but because they collect money, separate from the actual booking rate, from the purchaser of their service, money they keep, they ought be considered an active, not passive, participant in the transaction and ought be held to the same regulatory and fiscal responsibilities as any other paid provider of accommodations.
In my view, because of Airbnb's financial arrangements, liability for tax collection and remittance, and for maintenance of properties to local regulatory requirements should rest with them, regardless of the type of rental (room or whole place) and regardless of whether the property is otherwise occupied when not being rented through their service.
Specifically for a city like Venice, the density of all short term rentals, whether listed on Airbnb or not, needs to be controlled. But this is a municipal matter. It requires actual regulation that will constrain the resident's - the voter's - freedom to manage their property as they see fit. I could see the hesitation. However, in a city like Venice entire neighborhoods could become transient. And never in the history of capitalism has a business voluntarily restricted its own growth. Well, rarely. I seem to recall Patagonia's founder, Yvon Chouinard, did just that. It was newsworthy because it was such an exception.