I don't understand why the amount is important. He did not cause $20,000 in damages to the landlord. At most, he did $20,000 in damages to the hotel down the street.
No, he didn't. But he did do some damage. That's the nature of property, the more it's used, the more damage it accrues. By having "extra" people in the apartment, the property was being depreciated at a greater rate without compensation to the landlord.
I'm unsure that this makes sense. If he had picked up a roommate instead of renting on ABnB, the landlord wouldn't have gotten more money, yet there would more 'more people' causing 'more damage.'
Generally, the shorter time you're staying for, the less invested in the property and community you are. For an example, a guest will on average think less of making noise when coming in late than a tenant who will be having a longer term relationship with the neighbours.
Personally, I've never known anyone that would treat a place poorly just due to a short stay. The people I know that would treat a place poorly are people would do so on a long or short stay.
To that point, I wouldn't think it matters in any appreciable way.
The lessee is still responsible for those damages whether or not he was renting the room, so the landlord has a path for recompense in the event that any portions of the place are damaged to the point of requiring rumuneration.
And that's the key. I have never met a landlord who demanded compensation from regular wear and tear. Not for the appliances, floors, walls, etc.
I wasn't talking about holes in walls. I was talking about the general wear and tear that the landlord would never be compensated for. In the end, he would have to replace appliances out of his own pocket at a faster rate, etc.
Because, at the risk of repeating myself, $20,000 isn't "little ways".
It is $20,000. We are talking about something important here. Yes, we all make a few holes in the wall or unsanctioned little repairs or something, but we're talking $20,000. It's not "little things". I'm not saying it's automatically "damage" or harm of any kind. In fact it pretty clearly isn't since it's hard to miss $20,000 in damages. But we're not talking about a couple holes in the wall, we're talking about $20,000.
I've got a very simple four-word point, and I was not trying to imply any further argument.
The large amount of profit may inspire attention, but it doesn't correlate with the extent of lease violation (to my mind).
The lease likely mentions guests generally, not charging for them. Which would mean CouchSurfing.org is just as problematic - and that the amount of profit is immaterial.
You seem to be continuing to impute arguments to me that I am not making. No, I don't particularly think that AirBNB is especially problematic, I think the entire "genre" of business faces the same problems. None of them are the sort of little issue we don't have to worry about, they're all worth talking about (and, alas, probably litigating and legislating about).
He may have imposed more than $20,000 in potential liability on the landlord (i.e., if something went wrong). Standard insurance does not usually extend to the hotel-style leasing that AirBnB offers, so the landlord (and the tentant) would have been personally liable for any damages.
It is possible that the actuarial value (i.e., risk-adjusted value) of those potential liabilities exceeds $20,000, but we would need more information to know.
