I was simply commenting on the semantic nature of "it wasn't illegal, but it wasn't legal."
That said, "unlicensed hotel" is a quandary that has been argued a thousand times over. A hotel and a boarding house are legally distinct. Legally speaking, hotels have separate rooms for guests which is distinct from subletting either a single room as well as from subletting the entirety of the property. Legally speaking, an AirBNB rental most closely correlates to a "lodging house", which does not provide food for its guests, which is a requirement for a hotel, or inn (per Black's, anyway).
Legally speaking, what we are likely talking about is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all AirBNB rentals that are now being lumped together into a single term, which only muddies the argument even further.
The idea that a sublet, lodging house, or boarding house is "close enough" to a hotel to be considered under the purview of hotel licensure is ... optimistic, and to me, smacks of the state's unwillingness to let some revenue go uncaptured.
But, that's just my opinion, and I appreciate that the argument is nuanced, and there are potentially safety concerns as well.
I think that weird semantic nature is because there's more than one entity involved here.
AirBnB is just a platform. It is, by itself, legal. However, virtually everyone who uses AirBnB uses it illegally.
Thus, it's not illegal (because AirBnB the service is not forbidden) but it's not legal (because it's hard to use the service without breaking the law, and in practice almost nobody does what's required).
That said, "unlicensed hotel" is a quandary that has been argued a thousand times over. A hotel and a boarding house are legally distinct. Legally speaking, hotels have separate rooms for guests which is distinct from subletting either a single room as well as from subletting the entirety of the property. Legally speaking, an AirBNB rental most closely correlates to a "lodging house", which does not provide food for its guests, which is a requirement for a hotel, or inn (per Black's, anyway).
Legally speaking, what we are likely talking about is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all AirBNB rentals that are now being lumped together into a single term, which only muddies the argument even further.
The idea that a sublet, lodging house, or boarding house is "close enough" to a hotel to be considered under the purview of hotel licensure is ... optimistic, and to me, smacks of the state's unwillingness to let some revenue go uncaptured.
But, that's just my opinion, and I appreciate that the argument is nuanced, and there are potentially safety concerns as well.