In the wake of the deadly fires that ravaged Southern California in January, Airbnb received widespread praise for its voucher program that offered free stays for displaced victims. However, reviews weren’t as glowing for many who needed the housing.
Airbnb.org, a nonprofit funded by Airbnb, partnered with 211 L.A. to provide the free stays and received 34,000 applications. They sent out roughly 11,000 vouchers, with over 60,000 free nights booked by more than 17,000 people affected by the fires. However, those who didn’t get approved or didn’t make the most of the program saw it as a genuine offer hamstrung by excessive red tape or a half-hearted PR move.
Some, like Todd Smoyer, who lost his home in Altadena, applied for a voucher but wasn’t able to use it due to restrictions and a seven-day expiration date. Smoyer felt the program was a “PR stunt” and said he had to book a stay in Palm Springs with a different platform when his voucher didn’t work out.
Others, like Eleanor Green, who evacuated from La Cañada Flintridge, were offered a voucher but didn’t learn about it until after she had already spent $1,500 on two separate Airbnb stays. The voucher itself only applied to bookings made before she got the credit, leaving her feeling cheated out of potential refunds.
Airbnb’s executive director for Airbnb.org, Christoph Gorder, defended the program, saying that the company couldn’t allow retroactive voucher applications or apply credits to existing bookings due to logistical and practical considerations. He also said that the seven-day expiration was a safeguard against fraud, though he acknowledged that the program has been improved and will now allow more extensions and refunds.
Despite the criticism, Airbnb has committed to offering up to 40,000 more free nights through the voucher program, and has waived all fees for the stays. Some, like a Pacific Palisades evacuee, were able to secure a $2,000 voucher and use it towards a month-long stay in Santa Monica, but others, like Graham Fortier, lost $6,100 when a voucher expired and the host refused to cancel his booking.
The controversy has led some to question whether the program was more about publicity than actual aid, and whether it could have been designed to better assist those in need. As one evacuee put it, “The message is to help people in a time of need, but the program is not set up that way.”
