Initiatives like Couchsurfing or Freecycle provide a platform for people with particular assets — be it a spare room or furniture — to share those with others.
So what happens when you take a concept from one field — like Airbnb — and graft it onto a need in another — refugees needing a place to stay? You get this initiative started in Berlin.
In theory, you’d think that’s a great idea, people looking out for each other. Why not an Airbnb for homeless people? And then you think in some cases, we’re touching on duties which are meant to be be met by the state, but aren’t sufficiently, either due to lack of housing or political will.
Often what happens is…nothing, as the state — be it government or councils — wonder what their role should be, and don’t want to create a precedent that they don’t fully control or understand.
Informal initiatives end up taking off and then slowly can’t keep up with the demand, or if they work where a community already has groups operating similar principles which can help it grow. Or if there’s a way a transaction can be made, it turns into a platform that people invest in — which is why you’ve got greater investment in Airbnb than Couchsurfing.
Instead of either picking winners and supporting one individual initiatives over another, which is what the perception of grant-making can be, why not support the infrastructure that different projects can use, tools, methods or training that any project that wants to match make people in a trusted way can use, be it “Airbnb for refugees” or “Uber for meals on wheels”?
