I think that's a pretty privileged viewpoint. That's $100/year of disposable income for maybe a parking spot where you want to go, maybe available when you want to go. That's definitely not a trivial dollar amount for something like that, especially when there are free alternatives (strip mall parking lots, rest stops, federal lands, moving between neighborhoods, etc.). Then there's the question of being able to offer a designated parking spot (hosting) in exchange for staying credits. Paid private parking, especially extra spots, is an absurd luxury in much of the country, for many people.

I knew many people -- climbers, travelers, dirtbaggers, backpackers -- who really wanted to see the public lands that they partially own but could not afford to travel in luxury, people who ate ramen and rice and beans for months just to be able to afford to see the lands. There are also people who live in campers and vans because they can't afford rent. That $100 could definitely go to better uses.

If $100 is nothing to you, perhaps you're the kind of traveler this website is targeting. It's definitely not for everyone. I've met many amazing people on Couchsurfing and Warmshowers, which (at the time) were totally free and still today are much cheaper. The vast majority of the people I hosted were very poor but very well traveled, with stories to tell and friendships across the world. Very few of the rich people I've met have had the same experiences to share. Hosting them was a privilege, and not something I would've wanted to charge them for even if I could. I also met very interesting hosts traveling the same way, because at the end day doing that becomes way more relational and way less transactional -- the opposite of luxury travel.

$100/year, $0.27/day is not in the realm of privilege. The groups you mention spend more than that a year to upgrade gear/etc. I call bollocks on this.

I think this is missing the point. It's not "Can I afford $100 for a year's worth of travel", it's that communities have been sharing hosting/staying for a long time already, for free or nearly free. Then suddenly a new company shows up, offers the same service, but now wants to charge hosts and guests $100/yr for doing the same thing as before. Why should they pay that? What does the new company offer?

FWIW, it is a genuine question, and depending on the answer could make the service actually very valuable. For example (only):

* If they manually vet each member not just with a basic ID check (ID.me etc.) but also with a background check and a Zoom interview, or otherwise improve community trust and relationships

* If they provide a built-in calendar/scheduling system and provide support for last-minute cancellations, rebookings, etc.

* If they provide vastly superior UX or support compared to Couchsurfing and Warmshowers

* If they provide support for international travelers, especially for accidents, medical issues, translations, whatever. But so far this seems to be within California only.

But from their website it's not clear that such value-adds are being done, so then the question is not whether $100/yr is affordable, it's what $100/yr gives you that $30/yr does not. If you're rich, that's not a big deal. If you're poor, that $70 a year DOES make a difference.

I didn't miss the point. The groups you mention spend significant sums on equipment each year. They probably also drink coffee from places like starbucks/etc. They have disposable income and $100/year is a pittance.

Your point of pre-existing free services is a whole different matter and has merits of it's own to discuss. I think, as someone pointed out, couchsurfing.org got kinda weird/shady. I was a member years ago and just stopped paying attention (I recall when there were mailing lists/news groups for such). I think money spent on verification makes sense these days.

They did not miss the point.

Yeah, if I'm going to be honest, if you can't afford $100/yr you can't afford to host, so you're not going to be a contributor to their community. Looks like the filter is working.

Not only that but for many, paying $100 a year would bring a sense of security of choosing a legit service, service which could be very unsafe without a proper identification and that’s where the registrant’s payment could establish some traceability in case something goes bad. Paying $100 also puts a price on account abuse for registrants too. I don’t think paying for a service is a bad thing and don’t think it is expensive at all. Someone has to maintain the service, even if that’s a one dev shop. I don’t consider myself priviledged at all as I’m not in a very rosy financial situation and think twice or more before spending any dollar. Ok, I have food and shelter, I’m not dirt poor but do live paycheck to paycheck as modestly as I can. There’s an utopic idea of free community service but that requires someone to put work in, either volunteer or pay some.

Hosting is actually free (as it should be).

I used to be very active on Couchsurfing and have hosted dozens of travelers -- to rave reviews, and much more often than I stayed. It doesn't cost me anything to share a couch (or a room, on the rare occasion I had a spare). What I'm objecting to is the website taking $100/yr -- for what? It's unclear -- on principle, when communities like it have existed for far cheaper and far longer. It seems to exploit both the hosts and the guests. I understand some overhead (especially when it comes to trust and safety) but it's not clear to me why that price point is necessary when alternatives can offer the same service for much less.

Probably in the "zero[0] marginal cost to owner" sense. They already paid for them; that cost has been sunk. If they aren't using them (and while I don't have citations to back this is, I'm confident that the majority of privately owned bathrooms are sitting idle and unused at least half of the day) why not let someone else?

[0] Yes, okay, fine, the marginal cost is not truly, literally zero: there'll be a few cents for water, a little wear and tear on the equipment, a few squares of toilet paper, a couple squirts of soap, etc. However, most people do not track their budgets that closely anyway, so it would be lost in the noise.

On the website it says that if you only want to host, you don't need to pay the membership fee.

So the fee is really only if you want to be a guest. But then you need to host to earn credits to be a guest.

Yeah and wow, that’s pretty gross, who are they filtering out for? People like me who are normal don’t do drugs that are disabled and homeless?

You can't use land camp if you don't own a home / property that has parking space and restrooms. At least after your 3 free stays are done.

Or put another way, you pay at least $33/night for the right to park a van in one or more undisclosed locations in California for a maximum of three nights. Not sure how that compares with local campsites cost-wise, but it isn't quite free.

Any additional benefit you may be able to obtain is contingent upon other people wanting to park on your lawn for an equivalent number of nights first, which implies you're probably not in the can't afford a campsite bracket, is probably more hassle than paying for a campsite, and isn't much use if you're looking to stop for four nights somewhere in the near future...

Other sites charge less for the right to stay 365 days a year at thousands of actual photographed locations without being a California homeowner with parking space, and waive the fee if you host.

Correct, but solardev was criticizing the $100/yr price, specifically.

And if you own a home, $100 is NOTHING compared to all costs incurred.

Not personal but I absolutely hate your edit. Frivolous stuff that you mentioned is _important_ for mental health and hence not.

Therapy is important for mental health. Exercise is important for mental (and physical) health. Cable and McDonald's isn't.

I don't think I've met a single millennial in the past year that cooks their own food. I'm worried for them.