"Entire apartment" short-term rentals have been illegal for some time under NY law, but it happens a lot anyway, especially in NYC, because it is difficult to enforce, since law enforcement has to prove that a violation occurred. There is a task force dedicated to that, but because of the effort involved in going after violators, they have pretty much only gone after the "big players," like entire buildings being converted to hotel operations.
Since this bill makes the advertising of the apartment itself illegal, it should actually be able put a stop to the practice, at least in NYC. This feels like a big deal to me because I live in a pretty trendy Manhattan neighborhood, and in addition to the annoyance of being a neighbor to a full-time Airbnb operation, I also have to assume it is making it harder for me and my friends to find apartments.
That's pretty much what I thought when I saw the headline. The article doesn't give text of the law, but it does say the law doesn't apply to homeowners who rent out single rooms while they are themselves present. I suspect that if you're not present, you're not safe from prosecution.
Renting two rooms while you are present seems safer.
With fines starting out at $1,000, pretty sure it'd be worth it to have a full-time city employee to scan for violations. Heck, you could outsource it, letting the third-party keep a % of the fine. While we're at it, there could be a startup for this.. disrupting the disrupters!
>While we're at it, there could be a startup for this.. disrupting the disrupters
This isn't as crazy as it sounds. "Hello, mid-size municipality! If you implement our easily-tailored boilerplate-legalese bylaw suite, our specially trained twentysomethings will provide same-day firing solutions to your bylaw officers for the likes of Uber, AirBnB, Lyft, wind turbines, factory farms, people who park in the bike lane, and much more!"
Has anyone experienced poor usability if they search their own city? Load up the VPN and suddenly it works? I have a suspicion that airbnb likes to prevent airbnb strata-enforcers from searching the site.
I haven't personally noticed that, but I attempted a VPN comparison like you did. On one hand, it would would make it harder for neighbors, regulators, and law enforcement to take action against Airbnb hosts, but on the other it would also make it more difficult for guests to hop rentals when they are visiting a city and choose to extend their stay.
Of course, Airbnb has been accused of manipulating data before, when it was noticed that they removed a large number of listings just before handing a dump to the NY attorney general, so I wouldn't put it past them by any means.
If I'm a guest, visting NYC and looking for the next place to stay, I would be logged in and Airbnb would know very well I'm from out of town (payment details etc.)
> Shouldn't that be considered a band-aids to actually increasing the supply of housing?
Manhattan is a little tight on space for fill-in (I doubt this legislation was targeted at Staten Island...), although I'd be curious how much denser one could make Manhattan with modern building techniques.
It's not so much the ability to erect buildings to increase density. It's being able to support that increased density with infrastructure such as public transportation.
Manhattan could be much denser. Most of Manhattan is not skyscrapers or high rises.
Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million.
The current density of Manhattan itself is just 12 people per 5,000 square feet. There's plenty of room to grow, plus, why just consider Manhattan? Many of us are happy to live in the nearby boroughs (which are also, unfortunately, very limited in what they're allowed to build).
One big problem with cramming more people into Manhattan is that putting up new buildings isn't sufficient. All those new residents will also need to get to work, further taxing a mass transit system whose aging infrastructure is already packed to capacity. Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. There are also issues like having adequate electricity for all these new residents - on a hot summer day, NYC operates dangerously close to peak power capacity, and all those new residents are going to want to have air conditioning too.
"Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million."
In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions.
The number of single-person households has increased significantly since the 1950s, so my guess is that many of those 400K extra residents in 1950 were kids living with their parents, who didn't require apartments of their own and didn't commute to work by subway.
> Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings.
This is true, but essentially making it illegal for new people to move here (by making it impossible to build anything new), doesn't seem to be an appropriate solution. Rather, the MTA should be more under control of the city rather than the state. Further, increased density (and therefore more taxes and subway revenue), should in a reasonable world make it easier to upgrade infrastructure.
I get this concern, but the problems of infrastructure in NYC are primarily political, and punishing everyone (including people who just want to rent out their place when they go on a trip themselves), seems unjust.
> In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions.
Maybe not, but many young single people would love to be allowed to live in a modern 300 square foot microapartment in Manhattan.
More than half the buildings in Manhattan today violate the modern zoning laws and couldn't be built today. There was a NYtimes article about it recently.
He says: "You can't have it both ways, @NYSenate. You can't both be a startup hub and give incumbents laws banning startups."
I disagree with this sentiment on so many levels.
First, while Airbnb has been working hard to frame this as "the hotel industry vs the disruptive startup," there are plenty of regular New Yorkers who oppose "entire apartment" listings, either because they make bad neighbors, or because they further constrain the apartment supply in an already tight rental market.
Second, we can argue over the semantics of what makes a company a "startup," but Airbnb is a large tech company worth billions of dollars that is impacting communities all over the world, for better or worse. It is unfair to take the position that to be a "startup hub" a city must support Airbnb's practices, even if is to the detriment of that city's residents.
And lastly, this law doesn't "ban" Airbnb. Short term "entire apartment" rentals were already illegal in NY. This just makes it easier to go after violators. And you can still rent out an extra room on Airbnb, or rent an apartment with an extra bedroom and rent that out.
Anyway, would love for PG or someone from YC who agrees with him to respond.
I call these "Uber Businesses." They only exist because they were able to raise capital and market share faster than the legal system could respond to them breaking laws.
PG's Tweet is pretty off-base and disingenuous. He makes it seem like AirBNB is being persecuted and that there are no legitimate grievances with the way AirBNB is negatively impacting local communities and housing markets.
There is a lot of stuff you can't do to your own house/apartment without violating some rule or law. This is old. Airbnb can be disruptive in many negative ways and not every community feels that the trade-offs of letting them do as they please are worth it.
For one, it's against every rental agreement I've ever signed (no subletting clause). Another reason people don't like it is due to the party people who frequently rent these, the extra parking spaces being used, people moving around at all hours, people not caring about the space because they don't own it, etc. Basically all the things which are incentivized in normal multi-month rental contracts which are not present in Airbnb contracts. People who live in an apartment building don't want a hotel room next to them.
I agree with the sentiment that the people using Airbnb are not going to care like owners, but they're also going to be liable for damage caused just like in any other rental. Policing that, though, is surely a nightmare. Also how are extra parking spaces being used, I would assume if you rent out your rental, you're not going to leave your automobile there? I mean you might have multiple cars, but then that in itself is already causing congestion.
> Why should not be able to advertise/rent your apartment on Airbnb?
Why should you follow any laws ? after all, you can do as you please, no one forces you to follow the law. And no one's going to feel sorry for you when you get caught.
Same with Uber IMO. If your startup is "disruptive" by virtue of doing something against the spirit of the law, do not misunderstand law to be some immutable code; even if people love your product, the disruptees will likely be pissed and whine to the government to change the letter of the law to match the spirit once again.
pg has been consistent with this viewpoint, expressing the same sentiment when Austin voters rejected a proposition that would have done away with driver fingerprinting requirements for Uber and Lyft: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/731871426056065028
If nothing else, the Austin case in particular is very interesting to me in that, with Uber and Lyft gone, there have been a flurry of startups and a non-profit in the rideshare space: Fare, Fasten, GetMe, Wingz, and the non-profit RideAustin. While none of them (yet) provide the hail times and low prices of Uber or Lyft, at the very least it is an interesting experiment in some different business models.
This article is misleading. It, if you read it at face value, suggests that they've just banned all full apartments on AirBNB. The truth is, they've banned advertising full apartments for stays of < 30 days[1].
Note that since 2010, it's already been illegal to rent out a full unit for less than 30 days [2]. It's just that now, advertising on AirBNB (or similar service) could subject you to fines. This is the 'answer' to AirBNB refusing to pull illegal listings themselves.
caution: rant ahead
The Gothamist has some of the worst proofreading of any rag out there that I've across. And if you comment and correct (nicely) the information presented, they'll ban you on the spot. It's a news source with a closed circle jerk of certain ideologies and perspectives.
Airbnb’s unchecked growth is depleting our affordable housing stock and driving up rent, while threatening good-paying middle class union hotel jobs in New York City and around the country," Peter Ward, president of the New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, said in a statement. "This bill will go a long way toward better protecting tens of thousands of affordable housing units our members and their families rely on to remain in the neighborhoods they call home, and preserving the quality jobs and quality of life in our communities our members deserve. (Posted not from the weak Gothamist article but from Crain's)
You have to love the hotel lobby, coming out in protection of 'communities' and affordability.
Not only that, but I think there is reason to believe that AirBnB further stresses the housing market and adds additional fuel to the existing divide between the Haves and Have Nots by putting more rent monies into the hands of the Haves and creating more scarcity of housing for those looking for a long-term rental, not an alternative to a hotel.
They are, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, that the Hotel Lobby makes a statement about affordability is a little much, it has such a rhetorical, trendy ring to it (these days a speech has to use the words community, affordable housing, 'your homes', etc.)
Out of a housing stock of about 2.2M or so units, AirBNB takes something like 30K off the market, apparently, in this particular instance (short term rentals).
People will always skirt the system, though. It's unclear what impact this will have.
I am a bit fed up with hearing this kind of thing. We are all human beings.
If you are rich, you get accused of being in it for the money. If you are poor, you are accused of being in it for the money. If you have a vested interest, you are accused of bias. If you have no vested interest, you are told go away and STFU.
Poor people do not have the time, energy and money to advocate for changes that would potentially free up a MERE 30k rental units. They are too busy trying to survive. People with money are generally too busy trying to get richer or keep what they have to put time into trying to make the world an actually better place.
Who is allowed to say "This is bad for affordable housing" and be taken seriously? It seems like there is no one on the planet who is allowed to advocate for affordable housing. We are all guilty of something. Meanwhile, affordable housing simply is not happening.
Affordable housing is tough in a market where only 1M apartments are market rate -- and don't misread me as saying that the other 1M shouldn't be stabilized, I'm just pointing out the elastic part of the housing market -- in one of the most dynamic cities financially and culturally in the world. NYC is half the geographical size of London, has 500K more residents within it in 2010 than 2000, and has a strong economy right now. Stronger than places like the rust belt. It has finance, media and tech, it has international allure.
I'm not actually advocating for or against affordable housing, but I do want to say that it is incredibly not surprising that with such a small supply of land and housing, that things aren't affordable when so many people want to be here.
There are lots of hot cities in the world where things aren't affordable. And when people say NYC isn't affordable, it's misleading: what's not affordable are the desirable neighborhoods. Across the river in places like Jersey City, within NYC south Bronx, Staten Island, many parts of Queens, while increasing in demand are also relatively affordable. If people to live in an area that becomes very hot and popular (eg. Williamsburg), you only manage to live there if you're lucky, bought before things got expensive, or relatively affluent.
This is not specific to New York per se. I guess you have every right to argue that this is just a New York issue because this this a New York law under discussion, but lack of affordable housing is hardly specific to New York and AirBnB is also hardly specific to New York.
So, while you no doubt have some valid points, the fact is that affordable housing is simply not happening nationwide. And when people do what you are currently doing -- and most people do -- of saying "yes, BUT..." and acting like somehow this specific instance is not relevant or doesn't count, well, again, affordable housing is simply not happening and there is always an excuse and it is always not the thing we are talking about THIS time.
So, do you have any pointers as to how and when it would be okay to make any points about it without them being dismissed out of hand as irrelevant, not on topic and so on?
It's true that homelessness is on the rise. But in New York, half of our rental housing is rent regulated, that's 1M apartments. Even if 100% of them were rent regulated, there likely would be homeless people, since lower rent does not mean cheap rent (an $800 studio will still be out of reach to someone from the street). Then we have projects, but those have severe funding problems and a long line to get in.
Many homeless people you see have mental health and addiction issues. The bigger issue is funding clinics and mental facilities so their only occasional beds aren't public hospitals and jails.
This is not specific to New York per se. I guess you have every right to argue that this is just a New York issue because this this a New York law under discussion, but lack of affordable housing is hardly specific to New York and AirBnB is also hardly specific to New York.
I have every right to be New York specific? That's an interesting way to put it, to say the least. Listen, and I'm assuming you're in the U.S.: we live in a big country, one that's run as a Federation. State laws and city laws differ enormously. It's hard to talk about housing policy in the abstract without reference to specific cities and states. Where we can talk more generally are trends, like the growth of cities.
So, do you have any pointers as to how and when it would be okay to make any points about it without them being dismissed out of hand as irrelevant, not on topic and so on?
Thanks
My sarcasm detection seems unable to parse this sentence, but I'll be naive and assume you're asking a serious question. How do we avoid making points dismissed out of hand as irrelevant? Well, when we have political entities make doublespeak or insincere commentary to bolster something different entirely in their own interest, I say it's fair to dismiss as insincere. In this case the hotel lobby of NYC came out making commentary about communities and affordable housing, when in fact the law was for the most part protecting the hotel lobby. That's insincere. I feel that as a nation we're so accustomed to our political figures and advertising entities make insincere comments that it barely registers morally.
I generally try to not be sarcastic. Thank you for making an effort to answer in good faith.
The point I was trying to make is that the subject of affordable housing seems to have fallen into the same pattern that discrimination against women or people of color has fallen into. There is always, without fail, some reason (aka excuse) as to why this specific woman or this specific person of color does not deserve the promotion or should not be listened to, etc. It isn't their gender or skin color, it is that they aren't saying it right, being too emotional, etc ad nauseum -- standards that white males don't get held to. Affordable housing seems to be a topic where there is always some excuse as to why it is relevant this time, why it isn't a valid argument in this case and so on.
I do know something about these topics. I don't agree with you that homelessness is mostly about mental health issues and addiction. It is far more complicated than that. That piece of it gets far too much press. It becomes just another excuse to dismiss the fact that many people on the street have some income, just not enough to afford a middle class lifestyle, and affordable housing is in incredibly short supply in this country.
When you dismiss homeless people as merely insane addicts who cannot function in society any way, it is a convenient way to wash all of society clean of the responsibility of providing adequate amounts of affordable housing because we don't really know how to reliably cure mental health issues or addiction. So, it absolves the world of really doing anything about the problem because, hey, it isn't really fixable, so you can't reasonably expect "me"/the world to really try and you can't reasonably hold us responsible.
I fear I am wasting my breathe, so to speak. So, in the interest of not pointlessly beating a dead horse, I plan to stop here.
I like the idea that you realize you're potentially beating a dead horse. It must really feel this way when (you may not realize) your entire comment is full of assumptions about 'people who hold views like this' and straw man arguments as a result.
I never dismissed homeless people as insane addicts who can't function in society, and I didn't imply they couldn't be helped (I implied that funding was being cut to institutions that could help, and that's a fact in New York that started under previous mayors).
That's what politics is often reduced to, straw men, and the idea that the argument-maker has 'heard it all before' and therefore is tired of making an effort to make an argument that has facts in it. The truth is, if you think you've heard it all before, that's probably a sign you need to listen more carefully.
In that sense you would have been wasting your breath.
Yet, you continue to simply dismiss me, a point that I covered. I must not be listening carefully enough. It couldn't possibly be that I have a point and it simply has no hope of getting through to you, no matter what I do.
As a libertarian I really dislike any restrictions placed on the use of property I paid for and worse pay taxes on. As long as it does not threaten the health or safety of others/environment the state should not be telling me how I can use my property. If its a residence then I should be able to decide who who can reside there and how long pursuant to that I do not cause them harm or harm others by hosting them.
There is an apartment shortage specifically because regulation so restricts what you can build, where you can build, and worse at times what you can sell for; setting aside "affordable" units and such
You do as least recognize that under our current system land ownership is a long way away from being a free market path? The government subsidizes and insures a large portion of lending for home ownership. Also large tax breaks are typically given for new large scale construction. On top of that transportation to and from that land is provided by the government as well as government supplied protection for that property. Not to mention government supplied utilities for that property to access resources such as water and electricity.
I definitely not trying to get into a base line discussion about libertarian property rights ideas. But at least to help you understand what we have right now is a long long way from individual free and clear property ownership of land. Maybe before we start letting people do whatever they want with what you feel like is solely their land we need to address the massive amount of government supplied resources that land owner is currently enjoying.
And the property tax is there to pay for that infrastructure, as are the utility bills. The city isn't providing that infrastructure for free. If they want to raise property taxes for those using their property for commercial purposes then they should do that instead. Prohibiting someone from renting out property they have bought and are paying property tax on doesn't seem like the right answer.
No. The problem is that people who currently own houses want their properties values to go up.
The solution to all of this is to build so many houses that rent prices and housing prices are driven into the freaking ground. But the rich people who own all the land and buildings don't want them to happen because it would hurt their profits.
The enemy is not airbnb. The enemy is those who are using the government to protect their investments by preventing the free market from building.
One often sees this argument here. Speaking for myself, well sure, I don't want my property value to plummet so that I had to give it away if I ever wanted to move. But far more important is that I have the continued ability to use and enjoy my property on more or less the terms that existed when I purchased it. Yes, I understand that those terms evolve over time, especially in a city. But it's not just about the money.
One problem is that if you live in an apartment building where someone is renting out their apartment using AirBnB, your safety is now decreased as non-tenants now have access to the building where they wouldn't have had it before.
I have lived in Manhattan for a long time and it is very important to limit Airbnb for a number of reasons. First, people who live in apartment buildings do not want transients living there for personal safety and other reasons. We have doormen for a reason, part of which is to keep strangers out. Airbnb decreases the supply of housing and makes it more expensive for residents. How are either of these helpful?
Airbnb and its investors have no respect for New Yorkers who don't want these transients in our buildings. The know that New Yorkers don't want transients living in their buildings and they know we have a housing shortage yet they make things worse.
In cities like NYC what Airbnb needs to do is to pivot and build their own hotels under the Airbnb brand and rent them out at much lower costs than the outrageous rates of "name brand" hotels. Airbnb has a huge valuation and can afford to build these hotels and make a profit, while not impinging on the local housing supply and safety of New Yorkers.
Startups like Uber are welcomed because they help New Yorkers and visitors by making the supply of taxis and taxi-like vehicles * more available and safe . Airbnb makes the housing market less available and less safe *.
>First, people who live in apartment buildings do not want transients living there for personal safety and other reasons.
This doesn't need to be a legal issue. It's simply a rule of the building. People violating it are violating their contract with their building just like when they violate any other rule.
> Airbnb decreases the supply of housing and makes it more expensive for residents.
Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels. If visitors stay in Airbnbs, then there is less demand for hotels space and more space for residential properties. Demand for hotels also decreases residential supply.
Ultimately the issue of Airbnb on housing supply is a small one. Instead, question why so many neighborhoods have height restrictions and restrictions on building anything new. Most people supporting these laws are landowners and will admit that they are trying to protect the value of their property (i.e. keep housing prices high).
> Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels.
This is a slices-of-pie argument, neglecting changes in the size of the pie. By being a better value than hotels, airbnbs make traveling more attractive, meaning there will be somewhat more visitors and that they will stay longer. I think this is on balance a good thing for NYC (tourism is an industry, after all) but it does put a little more stress on an already-tight housing market.
That's completely arbitrary, all you're saying is hotels are offering things customers don't need, or legislation is causing them to bring up rates. Either way it sounds like there's a problem with the system, yet you think the blame lies solely with those who try and find an alternative.
Increased tourism might be "on balance a good thing" for NYC economically, but NYC also has an obligation to the welfare of its citizens. Does this new law bill strike the right balance between welfare and economics? I don't know, but the situation before was out of control.
You realize that the parent was talking about Manhattan, right. They have more than a few tall buildings there.
We're not talking NIMBY San Francisco with extreme resistance to anything. We are talking about bulldog being turned into flophouses (i.e. The 3 family in Queens that made the papers when it was divided into 24 AirBNB units is one example.) Another are coops which cost a ton.
The issue is that Airbnb decided that it is entitled to just flaunt the law and push out any liability to its customers. Other services make more of an effort... A few resort areas that I'm familiar with have rental restrictions in some areas. VRBO seems to be able to respect that. Airbnb not so much. Similar business model, different practice.
I'd suggest you look beyond Manhttan and PR stories probably sourced from developers... Look especially for local papers in the outer boroughs.
Plenty of neighborhoods that were 1-2 family houses in Queens as recently as the early 90s are 50%+ 4+ unit condos and apartments. My childhood home in Queens (a 19th century farmhouse) is now two 6 unit condos. Google about development in Forest Hills Queens and Staten Island. Plenty of stuff going on.
Even in Manhattan... It isn't turning into a playground for the rich because of zoning laws... It's a rich man's playground because there are lots of uber rich people who want it that way. Remember the current Mayor's crusade for horse rights? His care for equine welfare was motivated solely by his rich donors who want to redevelop the horse stables.
> You realize that the parent was talking about Manhattan, right. They have more than a few tall buildings there.
I see the Manhattan skyline every day. A lot of it does not have tall buildings and much of it has had severe height restrictions for decades.
> We are talking about bulldog being turned into flophouses (i.e. The 3 family in Queens that made the papers when it was divided into 24 AirBNB units is one example.) Another are coops which cost a ton.
So go after particular cases that you think are abusive, rather than pushing everyone. There's no hotel near where I live in Brooklyn, and when my family comes to visit, they've frequently rented a whole place (from people who clearly do live there 90% of the time). I don't see why that should be make a crime just because others act in ways you don't like.
> This doesn't need to be a legal issue. It's simply a rule of the building. People violating it are violating their contract with their building just like when they violate any other rule.
This sounds good in writing, but in practice, is nearly unenforceable. The mechanisms for landlords to stay on top of this are either unrealistic or draconian. eg, monitoring everyone that enters and leaves and analyzing it, asking tenants to do the same and then snitch on their neighbors, or doing door to door checks.
AirB&B is banned by the contract in the building I live in, and while I respect that because I happen not to be interested, it's virtually unenforceable and I have no way of knowing whether others in my building adhere to it.
IMO, legislation that forces services like airb&b to do only what's on the tin, short term, limited scope, infrequent rentals of residential spaces by people who occupy them the majority of the time, is both reasonable and necessary. Without those checks, which airb&b is totally uninterested in enforcing themselves, the service basically becomes a black market hotel market for property hoarders.
I don't understand at all why this is unenforceable. If the person is publicly listing their apartment on AirBnB, it's pretty easy to find listings in your apartment building. I recall an article a year or so back about people identifying their neighbors in AirBnB ads and reporting them to their landlords.
I don't disagree with your point, but why would Airbnb or anyone else build a real hotel then rent out rooms for less than comparable hotels in the area? They could build a hotel and get probably $300 a night in midtown, but they won't, because they're not in the hotel business, and if they were, they would have no good reason to rent out rooms cheaply.
The appeal of Airbnb, at least for me, is that you're staying somewhere novel, in a unique place, with unique hosts who may help you have a more fun experience than a hotel would provide. For example, I've had hosts show me around the city a bit, play board games with heir guests, or even just sit around and chat about life for a bit. It has a similar appeal to the good parts of CouchSurfing with a more mature vibe.
Edit: I'm sure some people use it for not-good things, but Airbnb is more comparable to a traditional vacation rental company than a hotel company.
I've had now 5 AirBnB (and copycat) experiences and none were like this. It was everytime a simple "Keys are here, other stuff is there, have fun" Kind of Situation. Never something as romantic as you describe it. How do you find those?
If you set out looking for this, you will surely find it! Use the search filters on Airbnb - the Superhost filter and searching for Private Room instead of Whole Unit are two good tactics to get started. Then read the listings reviews. Do guests mention the host? You can also message your host to make sure.
I usually travel with big groups so I don't go looking for this experience, but my parents are into it :)
> In cities like NYC what Airbnb needs to do is to pivot and build their own hotels under the Airbnb
Why would they do that since their business model is to take as little risk as possible while making a lot of money? it's just like Uber, the law is someone else's problem in the "sharing economy". You can't rely regulate Airbnb out of cities. You can only catch people who illegally sublet their appartements.
That's not facetious. It's pretty much a basic principle of government that the residents of an area get to make decisions about policy in the area where they live (subject to some restrictions).
"Transients" is definitely a term well chosen to frame the debate in your favor.
"Tourists", "visitors", or even "people" would all be much more welcoming terms.
You mention Uber in a positive light as providing "taxi-like vehicles", a nice neutral term. How does it sound when you call them "private black cars", or alternatively, "illegal taxicabs" or "gypsy cabs" (no slur intended against people of that ethnicity!).
Calling users of Airbnb "transients" is, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh. They're human beings, for goodness sake!
Well, in NYC at least, they are neither illegal taxicabs nor gypsy cabs, but fully licensed livery car services that follow all of the rules therein (no street hails, drivers are livery licensed, and uber operates licensed dispatch locations).
I'm not the gp but I think transients, as defined as, "people who do not intend to be resident in this location for more than 30 days", works just fine.
Uber was forced to follow some rules too. Drivers in NYC have commercial insurance requirements, need a TLC license and need to drive an approved vehicle.
AirBnB could solve these problems in 1 second by limiting it to 1 rental per account. The problem isn't someone renting out their full apartment, it's the professional operation of apartments on AirBnB by firms, sometimes very large firms, and enterprising individuals. They rent a bunch of units full time, taking significant real estate from would-be renters.
I own a duplex in a multi-family, and thought about renting out one floor (which might come across as a separate apartment in photos) on an occasional basis for extra money. That's very different from a vast enterprise that's doing it at scale. Unfortunately, New York laws have a tendency to affect the small and the large equally, despite the fact that the latter have a lot more financial buffers as protection and the former is more exposed to risk.
That said we can still rent it out for 30+ days at a time, legally.
Be careful about that as well - I'm pretty sure that in a lot of cases 30 days is the trigger point for a lot of tenant's rights issues such as having to go to court to try to evict someone who stops paying rent.
Yup, after 30 days they are a tenant. You then need to give them 30 days' notice to terminate their lease, have to go to housing court for evictions, etc.
Having lived in a Manhattan building where other tenants were basically subleasing their apartments on a daily and weekly basis to obnoxious guests, this is an excellent step forward. I'm disappointed to see so many tweets from tech leaders (lots of them investors in AirBnb, so taken with a grain of salt) about how this will kill startups in NY, since that is very hyperbolic.
this is not an "excellent step forward". This is a quick fix, later to be known as technical debt. An excellent step forward would have been if you could call Police for any neighbour that misbehave, no matter how he got inside that apartment.
So you're going to call the police five times a month and say what? "My neighbor is renting his apartment illegally and his guests are loud and left trash in the hallway?" The police have better things to do. The building managers are a better place to start but this kind of abuse is quite widespread and not easily stopped. There are some people who have purchased or rented multiple units and then AirBnb them out like hotels. It's unsafe for the other residents, it's annoying for those who are paying rent and living in those apartments, and, it's illegal. This law now makes it easier to actually enforce since perviously it was very difficult to catch violators. Now, someone can just browse the site and find them without having to set up some form of sting operation.
I was thinking about big fines for noise and the like. If not paid by guest make the owner pay. But this needs time to be implemented (in law and in practice) and nobody has an financial interest to do it. So instead of that, what you have is all kinds of groups that request what sounds to me to be very absurd laws.
Why nkt let the building owners decide? If you own a condo apt or coop, amend the operating agreement to not allow short term rentals without board approval... Assuming the rest of your building agrees.
I live in the Lower East Side, which is the most concentrated neighborhood in NYC for illegal airbnb's. There is literally no inventory here and the apartments that are available have skyrocketed in price in the last 4 years since I moved here. Thanks airbnb.
The Lower East Side is plagued with height limits, zoning restrictions, heavy parking requirements, etc. Thankfully, DeBlasio has been fighting these rules in order to allow more building, but for the most part, the Lower East Side's problem is simply that new housing has not really been built there and lots of people want to live there.
I live in the Lower East Side, which is the most concentrated neighborhood in NYC for illegal airbnb's. There is literally no inventory here and the apartments that are available have skyrocketed in price in the last 4 years since I moved here. Thanks airbnb.
The new law is against advertising the apartment. So NYC can go after people just for putting the apartment online instead of having to rely on AirBnB taking it down.
On the general issue of if something like AirBnB should be allowed I'm mixed but on the specific of AirBnB they're an evil company in my experience.
They aren't even trying not to be evil. They are trying to take ZERO responsibility for anything. They don't care how much their hosts lie and take zero efforts to hold hosts accountable for their lies.
I've rented places that claimed to be 1 bed room but were actually a studio. I've rented places that claimed to have "parking on premises" but didn't. I've rented places that claimed to include internet but didn't. The latest is I rented a place the claimed to be at a certain location but was actually several blocks away. When I complained the AirBnB rep told me it was company policy to allowed hosts to lie about their locations because putting actual locations on the internet would be dangerous. When I pointed out Redfin, Craigslist, VRBO, etc don't have such a BS policy he claimed it was one reason AirBnB is more successful. In other words, because they allow lying they are more successful.
If they ever start taking some responsibility, say fining lying hosts or banning them from the site or marking their ratings down maybe I'll start rooting for them but until then I hope they get banned.
I've used airbnb 10 times in the past 5 months, for stays ranging from a few days to 6 weeks. Every stay has been great so far. Airbnb has some problems they need to fix, but they are an immensely valuable service for travelers. I am not sure how I would have done this trip without it. Craigslist is a massive pain in the ass compared to airbnb (for anything but long term rentals). And hotels are far too expensive for my budget. For the longer stays, even hostels cost more. I've been spending $15 to $25 a day for the longer stays.
I've stayed in 22 places of which about 1 out of 4 has lied about their accommodations. One place claimed internet included, turned out they were stealing it from a neighbor and it only worked if you sat the the side of the sofa closest to the window. One place claimed 1 bedroom but was actually a studio with a wardrobe used as a separator. The difference between a 1 bedroom and a studio is whether or not there is a door to shut out the noise of the refrigerator. 2 places advertised parking on premises but didn't have it. I paid for those places so I wouldn't have to deal with searching for parking. Several places have claimed to have internet but when I show up it turns out they only have a MiFi and a notice saying "Please don't use the internet much or it will run out because it has a 5Gig limit for the entire month". And of course I've rented the place for 4-6 weeks as a place TO LIVE not to be a tourist. The last place lied about its location.
Since then I've gotten better about spotting the lies before hand but AirBnB won't do anything about it when you try to report them. Places I've messaged to verify the listed amenities actually exist (like parking), get told they don't actually exist, I then flag the listing, report the issue, check back a few weeks later, no change to the listing.
AirBnB is an evil company because they purposely let people lie about their listings. I don't disagree with you they could be a useful service but as long as their official policy is that false advertising is ok they are clearly not a company with any sense of ethics.
I've only stayed at places with good reviews as well. For the last one with the false location I can only think of a few possible explanations
) the users didn't look at the AirBnB map and only looked the instructions received a day or 2 before arriving
) the users noticed but didn't care
If you're visiting a city you've never been to you're more likely not to care. If on the other hand you're visiting a city you're familiar with (me) then you're more likely to be using the map to choose a place you actually know.
I don't know where you live but I'm sure you know some places where the difference of a 1-3 blocks would be the difference between some place you want to stay vs some place you don't. Next to a freeway/highway vs not. In a safe neighborhood vs in a dangerous neighborhood. On a scenic street vs on a non-scenic street.
For others maybe people are more forgiving. Example: I only rent 1 bedroom or larger because loud refrigerators keep me awake. (at least in the USA where they are loud) So when a listing lied about a studio being a 1 bedroom it meant I didn't sleep well the entire time. If that kind of noise doesn't bother you then you're not going to complain.
Similarly if you rent a place that says it comes with parking but you don't bring a car then you're not likely to complain about false advertising. If you come to a place to sight-see then you might not care about limited internet where as if you rent a place for a business trip then you probably do care since you'll likely be trying to do work from the place.
Finally the fact that hosts are people you actually interact with one-on-one makes it harder to leave a bad review for most people. It's easy to leave a bad review for Marriott. It's not so easy to leave a bad review for Jane ArtStudent renting out her apartment for extra cash while she stays with her S.O. She was really nice when she handed over the keys. It feels bad to give her a bad review so I'm guessing people pull their punches. I know I have even when I probably shouldn't have because the people I rented from felt like nice people even if they were falsely advertising.
I've learned my lesson though and now leave 1 star reviews if they lied to me.
Marking their ratings down is your job. Write a review about your complaints. Read reviews before you book. The rating system is what make Airbnb works. I've never had a problem booking any place with a long list of positive reviews.
112 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 281 ms ] threadSince this bill makes the advertising of the apartment itself illegal, it should actually be able put a stop to the practice, at least in NYC. This feels like a big deal to me because I live in a pretty trendy Manhattan neighborhood, and in addition to the annoyance of being a neighbor to a full-time Airbnb operation, I also have to assume it is making it harder for me and my friends to find apartments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11930098
Listing #95462: "Half of connected apartment available,see listing #95459 if you'd like to see the other half instead!"
Renting two rooms while you are present seems safer.
This isn't as crazy as it sounds. "Hello, mid-size municipality! If you implement our easily-tailored boilerplate-legalese bylaw suite, our specially trained twentysomethings will provide same-day firing solutions to your bylaw officers for the likes of Uber, AirBnB, Lyft, wind turbines, factory farms, people who park in the bike lane, and much more!"
Of course, Airbnb has been accused of manipulating data before, when it was noticed that they removed a large number of listings just before handing a dump to the NY attorney general, so I wouldn't put it past them by any means.
Shouldn't that be considered a band-aids to actually increasing the supply of housing?
I admit the solution, 'building more apartments' is a political problems. Humans are making it far more difficult than it has to be.
Manhattan is a little tight on space for fill-in (I doubt this legislation was targeted at Staten Island...), although I'd be curious how much denser one could make Manhattan with modern building techniques.
Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million.
The current density of Manhattan itself is just 12 people per 5,000 square feet. There's plenty of room to grow, plus, why just consider Manhattan? Many of us are happy to live in the nearby boroughs (which are also, unfortunately, very limited in what they're allowed to build).
One big problem with cramming more people into Manhattan is that putting up new buildings isn't sufficient. All those new residents will also need to get to work, further taxing a mass transit system whose aging infrastructure is already packed to capacity. Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. There are also issues like having adequate electricity for all these new residents - on a hot summer day, NYC operates dangerously close to peak power capacity, and all those new residents are going to want to have air conditioning too.
"Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million."
In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions.
The number of single-person households has increased significantly since the 1950s, so my guess is that many of those 400K extra residents in 1950 were kids living with their parents, who didn't require apartments of their own and didn't commute to work by subway.
This is true, but essentially making it illegal for new people to move here (by making it impossible to build anything new), doesn't seem to be an appropriate solution. Rather, the MTA should be more under control of the city rather than the state. Further, increased density (and therefore more taxes and subway revenue), should in a reasonable world make it easier to upgrade infrastructure.
I get this concern, but the problems of infrastructure in NYC are primarily political, and punishing everyone (including people who just want to rent out their place when they go on a trip themselves), seems unjust.
> In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions.
Maybe not, but many young single people would love to be allowed to live in a modern 300 square foot microapartment in Manhattan.
Close. The number is 40% [1].
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...
He says: "You can't have it both ways, @NYSenate. You can't both be a startup hub and give incumbents laws banning startups."
I disagree with this sentiment on so many levels.
First, while Airbnb has been working hard to frame this as "the hotel industry vs the disruptive startup," there are plenty of regular New Yorkers who oppose "entire apartment" listings, either because they make bad neighbors, or because they further constrain the apartment supply in an already tight rental market.
Second, we can argue over the semantics of what makes a company a "startup," but Airbnb is a large tech company worth billions of dollars that is impacting communities all over the world, for better or worse. It is unfair to take the position that to be a "startup hub" a city must support Airbnb's practices, even if is to the detriment of that city's residents.
And lastly, this law doesn't "ban" Airbnb. Short term "entire apartment" rentals were already illegal in NY. This just makes it easier to go after violators. And you can still rent out an extra room on Airbnb, or rent an apartment with an extra bedroom and rent that out.
Anyway, would love for PG or someone from YC who agrees with him to respond.
If the mafia re-incorporates as a startup in NYC, does it become incumbent on NYC to protect it because it wants to be a "startup hub"?
The city of Santa Monica banned certain short-term AirBNB rentals last year and remains one of the hottest tech hubs in the country: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/13/406587575/...
Kudos to NY lawmakers for taking this step.
It's already been illegal to rent out a whole apartment for less than 30 days. The new law just extends that to advertising the unit.
Basically, the law now prevents you from advertising a service that was already illegal.
People who live in apartment buildings have no say in who lives mext to them and no guarantee how long they will stay
Why should you follow any laws ? after all, you can do as you please, no one forces you to follow the law. And no one's going to feel sorry for you when you get caught.
It's just politicians taking from all to favor the few.
I'm referring to this brand new law that infringes on apartment owners rights to rent their apartment to whoever they please.
If the building rules don't prohibit it already I don't see why another law is needed.
If nothing else, the Austin case in particular is very interesting to me in that, with Uber and Lyft gone, there have been a flurry of startups and a non-profit in the rideshare space: Fare, Fasten, GetMe, Wingz, and the non-profit RideAustin. While none of them (yet) provide the hail times and low prices of Uber or Lyft, at the very least it is an interesting experiment in some different business models.
I think he should rent an apartment in a building that's been Airbnb'd for 90 days and revisit his opinion on day 91.
"Incumbents" are people, trying to live peacefully.
Note that since 2010, it's already been illegal to rent out a full unit for less than 30 days [2]. It's just that now, advertising on AirBNB (or similar service) could subject you to fines. This is the 'answer' to AirBNB refusing to pull illegal listings themselves.
caution: rant ahead
The Gothamist has some of the worst proofreading of any rag out there that I've across. And if you comment and correct (nicely) the information presented, they'll ban you on the spot. It's a news source with a closed circle jerk of certain ideologies and perspectives.
/rant
1 - http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160617/BLOGS04/160619...
2 - http://ny.curbed.com/2013/3/25/10260752/an-introduction-to-n...
You have to love the hotel lobby, coming out in protection of 'communities' and affordability.
Out of a housing stock of about 2.2M or so units, AirBNB takes something like 30K off the market, apparently, in this particular instance (short term rentals).
People will always skirt the system, though. It's unclear what impact this will have.
If you are rich, you get accused of being in it for the money. If you are poor, you are accused of being in it for the money. If you have a vested interest, you are accused of bias. If you have no vested interest, you are told go away and STFU.
Poor people do not have the time, energy and money to advocate for changes that would potentially free up a MERE 30k rental units. They are too busy trying to survive. People with money are generally too busy trying to get richer or keep what they have to put time into trying to make the world an actually better place.
Who is allowed to say "This is bad for affordable housing" and be taken seriously? It seems like there is no one on the planet who is allowed to advocate for affordable housing. We are all guilty of something. Meanwhile, affordable housing simply is not happening.
I'm not actually advocating for or against affordable housing, but I do want to say that it is incredibly not surprising that with such a small supply of land and housing, that things aren't affordable when so many people want to be here.
There are lots of hot cities in the world where things aren't affordable. And when people say NYC isn't affordable, it's misleading: what's not affordable are the desirable neighborhoods. Across the river in places like Jersey City, within NYC south Bronx, Staten Island, many parts of Queens, while increasing in demand are also relatively affordable. If people to live in an area that becomes very hot and popular (eg. Williamsburg), you only manage to live there if you're lucky, bought before things got expensive, or relatively affluent.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html
This is because the supply of affordable housing has been dwindling while demand grows:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1292331...
This is not specific to New York per se. I guess you have every right to argue that this is just a New York issue because this this a New York law under discussion, but lack of affordable housing is hardly specific to New York and AirBnB is also hardly specific to New York.
So, while you no doubt have some valid points, the fact is that affordable housing is simply not happening nationwide. And when people do what you are currently doing -- and most people do -- of saying "yes, BUT..." and acting like somehow this specific instance is not relevant or doesn't count, well, again, affordable housing is simply not happening and there is always an excuse and it is always not the thing we are talking about THIS time.
So, do you have any pointers as to how and when it would be okay to make any points about it without them being dismissed out of hand as irrelevant, not on topic and so on?
Thanks.
It's true that homelessness is on the rise. But in New York, half of our rental housing is rent regulated, that's 1M apartments. Even if 100% of them were rent regulated, there likely would be homeless people, since lower rent does not mean cheap rent (an $800 studio will still be out of reach to someone from the street). Then we have projects, but those have severe funding problems and a long line to get in.
Many homeless people you see have mental health and addiction issues. The bigger issue is funding clinics and mental facilities so their only occasional beds aren't public hospitals and jails.
This is not specific to New York per se. I guess you have every right to argue that this is just a New York issue because this this a New York law under discussion, but lack of affordable housing is hardly specific to New York and AirBnB is also hardly specific to New York.
I have every right to be New York specific? That's an interesting way to put it, to say the least. Listen, and I'm assuming you're in the U.S.: we live in a big country, one that's run as a Federation. State laws and city laws differ enormously. It's hard to talk about housing policy in the abstract without reference to specific cities and states. Where we can talk more generally are trends, like the growth of cities.
So, do you have any pointers as to how and when it would be okay to make any points about it without them being dismissed out of hand as irrelevant, not on topic and so on? Thanks
My sarcasm detection seems unable to parse this sentence, but I'll be naive and assume you're asking a serious question. How do we avoid making points dismissed out of hand as irrelevant? Well, when we have political entities make doublespeak or insincere commentary to bolster something different entirely in their own interest, I say it's fair to dismiss as insincere. In this case the hotel lobby of NYC came out making commentary about communities and affordable housing, when in fact the law was for the most part protecting the hotel lobby. That's insincere. I feel that as a nation we're so accustomed to our political figures and advertising entities make insincere comments that it barely registers morally.
The point I was trying to make is that the subject of affordable housing seems to have fallen into the same pattern that discrimination against women or people of color has fallen into. There is always, without fail, some reason (aka excuse) as to why this specific woman or this specific person of color does not deserve the promotion or should not be listened to, etc. It isn't their gender or skin color, it is that they aren't saying it right, being too emotional, etc ad nauseum -- standards that white males don't get held to. Affordable housing seems to be a topic where there is always some excuse as to why it is relevant this time, why it isn't a valid argument in this case and so on.
I do know something about these topics. I don't agree with you that homelessness is mostly about mental health issues and addiction. It is far more complicated than that. That piece of it gets far too much press. It becomes just another excuse to dismiss the fact that many people on the street have some income, just not enough to afford a middle class lifestyle, and affordable housing is in incredibly short supply in this country.
When you dismiss homeless people as merely insane addicts who cannot function in society any way, it is a convenient way to wash all of society clean of the responsibility of providing adequate amounts of affordable housing because we don't really know how to reliably cure mental health issues or addiction. So, it absolves the world of really doing anything about the problem because, hey, it isn't really fixable, so you can't reasonably expect "me"/the world to really try and you can't reasonably hold us responsible.
I fear I am wasting my breathe, so to speak. So, in the interest of not pointlessly beating a dead horse, I plan to stop here.
Thanks for engaging me.
I never dismissed homeless people as insane addicts who can't function in society, and I didn't imply they couldn't be helped (I implied that funding was being cut to institutions that could help, and that's a fact in New York that started under previous mayors).
That's what politics is often reduced to, straw men, and the idea that the argument-maker has 'heard it all before' and therefore is tired of making an effort to make an argument that has facts in it. The truth is, if you think you've heard it all before, that's probably a sign you need to listen more carefully.
In that sense you would have been wasting your breath.
There is an apartment shortage specifically because regulation so restricts what you can build, where you can build, and worse at times what you can sell for; setting aside "affordable" units and such
I definitely not trying to get into a base line discussion about libertarian property rights ideas. But at least to help you understand what we have right now is a long long way from individual free and clear property ownership of land. Maybe before we start letting people do whatever they want with what you feel like is solely their land we need to address the massive amount of government supplied resources that land owner is currently enjoying.
The solution to all of this is to build so many houses that rent prices and housing prices are driven into the freaking ground. But the rich people who own all the land and buildings don't want them to happen because it would hurt their profits.
The enemy is not airbnb. The enemy is those who are using the government to protect their investments by preventing the free market from building.
You blame government intervention while welcoming more government involvement
Airbnb and its investors have no respect for New Yorkers who don't want these transients in our buildings. The know that New Yorkers don't want transients living in their buildings and they know we have a housing shortage yet they make things worse.
In cities like NYC what Airbnb needs to do is to pivot and build their own hotels under the Airbnb brand and rent them out at much lower costs than the outrageous rates of "name brand" hotels. Airbnb has a huge valuation and can afford to build these hotels and make a profit, while not impinging on the local housing supply and safety of New Yorkers.
Startups like Uber are welcomed because they help New Yorkers and visitors by making the supply of taxis and taxi-like vehicles * more available and safe . Airbnb makes the housing market less available and less safe *.
This doesn't need to be a legal issue. It's simply a rule of the building. People violating it are violating their contract with their building just like when they violate any other rule.
> Airbnb decreases the supply of housing and makes it more expensive for residents.
Long term it should not decrease the supply of housing. Visitors are either going to stay in airbnbs, with friends, or at hotels. If visitors stay in Airbnbs, then there is less demand for hotels space and more space for residential properties. Demand for hotels also decreases residential supply.
Ultimately the issue of Airbnb on housing supply is a small one. Instead, question why so many neighborhoods have height restrictions and restrictions on building anything new. Most people supporting these laws are landowners and will admit that they are trying to protect the value of their property (i.e. keep housing prices high).
This is a slices-of-pie argument, neglecting changes in the size of the pie. By being a better value than hotels, airbnbs make traveling more attractive, meaning there will be somewhat more visitors and that they will stay longer. I think this is on balance a good thing for NYC (tourism is an industry, after all) but it does put a little more stress on an already-tight housing market.
Beyond that, the rules even from a condo complex can be lacking teeth, the law is not.
We're not talking NIMBY San Francisco with extreme resistance to anything. We are talking about bulldog being turned into flophouses (i.e. The 3 family in Queens that made the papers when it was divided into 24 AirBNB units is one example.) Another are coops which cost a ton.
The issue is that Airbnb decided that it is entitled to just flaunt the law and push out any liability to its customers. Other services make more of an effort... A few resort areas that I'm familiar with have rental restrictions in some areas. VRBO seems to be able to respect that. Airbnb not so much. Similar business model, different practice.
Actually, NYC is little better: http://www.city-journal.org/html/preservation-follies-13279.... or see the graph here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/a-tale-o....
Plenty of neighborhoods that were 1-2 family houses in Queens as recently as the early 90s are 50%+ 4+ unit condos and apartments. My childhood home in Queens (a 19th century farmhouse) is now two 6 unit condos. Google about development in Forest Hills Queens and Staten Island. Plenty of stuff going on.
Even in Manhattan... It isn't turning into a playground for the rich because of zoning laws... It's a rich man's playground because there are lots of uber rich people who want it that way. Remember the current Mayor's crusade for horse rights? His care for equine welfare was motivated solely by his rich donors who want to redevelop the horse stables.
I see the Manhattan skyline every day. A lot of it does not have tall buildings and much of it has had severe height restrictions for decades.
> We are talking about bulldog being turned into flophouses (i.e. The 3 family in Queens that made the papers when it was divided into 24 AirBNB units is one example.) Another are coops which cost a ton.
So go after particular cases that you think are abusive, rather than pushing everyone. There's no hotel near where I live in Brooklyn, and when my family comes to visit, they've frequently rented a whole place (from people who clearly do live there 90% of the time). I don't see why that should be make a crime just because others act in ways you don't like.
This sounds good in writing, but in practice, is nearly unenforceable. The mechanisms for landlords to stay on top of this are either unrealistic or draconian. eg, monitoring everyone that enters and leaves and analyzing it, asking tenants to do the same and then snitch on their neighbors, or doing door to door checks.
AirB&B is banned by the contract in the building I live in, and while I respect that because I happen not to be interested, it's virtually unenforceable and I have no way of knowing whether others in my building adhere to it.
IMO, legislation that forces services like airb&b to do only what's on the tin, short term, limited scope, infrequent rentals of residential spaces by people who occupy them the majority of the time, is both reasonable and necessary. Without those checks, which airb&b is totally uninterested in enforcing themselves, the service basically becomes a black market hotel market for property hoarders.
The appeal of Airbnb, at least for me, is that you're staying somewhere novel, in a unique place, with unique hosts who may help you have a more fun experience than a hotel would provide. For example, I've had hosts show me around the city a bit, play board games with heir guests, or even just sit around and chat about life for a bit. It has a similar appeal to the good parts of CouchSurfing with a more mature vibe.
Edit: I'm sure some people use it for not-good things, but Airbnb is more comparable to a traditional vacation rental company than a hotel company.
I usually travel with big groups so I don't go looking for this experience, but my parents are into it :)
(Disclosure: I'm an engineer @ Airbnb )
Why would they do that since their business model is to take as little risk as possible while making a lot of money? it's just like Uber, the law is someone else's problem in the "sharing economy". You can't rely regulate Airbnb out of cities. You can only catch people who illegally sublet their appartements.
That's not facetious. It's pretty much a basic principle of government that the residents of an area get to make decisions about policy in the area where they live (subject to some restrictions).
Nobody will stop me from being flown to work in a helicopter. But nobody will fly me to work for the price of a bus either.
"Tourists", "visitors", or even "people" would all be much more welcoming terms.
You mention Uber in a positive light as providing "taxi-like vehicles", a nice neutral term. How does it sound when you call them "private black cars", or alternatively, "illegal taxicabs" or "gypsy cabs" (no slur intended against people of that ethnicity!).
Calling users of Airbnb "transients" is, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh. They're human beings, for goodness sake!
I'm not the gp but I think transients, as defined as, "people who do not intend to be resident in this location for more than 30 days", works just fine.
I own a duplex in a multi-family, and thought about renting out one floor (which might come across as a separate apartment in photos) on an occasional basis for extra money. That's very different from a vast enterprise that's doing it at scale. Unfortunately, New York laws have a tendency to affect the small and the large equally, despite the fact that the latter have a lot more financial buffers as protection and the former is more exposed to risk.
That said we can still rent it out for 30+ days at a time, legally.
I wonder why I was downvoted. Because I said I'd rent my place out legally?
They aren't even trying not to be evil. They are trying to take ZERO responsibility for anything. They don't care how much their hosts lie and take zero efforts to hold hosts accountable for their lies.
I've rented places that claimed to be 1 bed room but were actually a studio. I've rented places that claimed to have "parking on premises" but didn't. I've rented places that claimed to include internet but didn't. The latest is I rented a place the claimed to be at a certain location but was actually several blocks away. When I complained the AirBnB rep told me it was company policy to allowed hosts to lie about their locations because putting actual locations on the internet would be dangerous. When I pointed out Redfin, Craigslist, VRBO, etc don't have such a BS policy he claimed it was one reason AirBnB is more successful. In other words, because they allow lying they are more successful.
If they ever start taking some responsibility, say fining lying hosts or banning them from the site or marking their ratings down maybe I'll start rooting for them but until then I hope they get banned.
Since then I've gotten better about spotting the lies before hand but AirBnB won't do anything about it when you try to report them. Places I've messaged to verify the listed amenities actually exist (like parking), get told they don't actually exist, I then flag the listing, report the issue, check back a few weeks later, no change to the listing.
AirBnB is an evil company because they purposely let people lie about their listings. I don't disagree with you they could be a useful service but as long as their official policy is that false advertising is ok they are clearly not a company with any sense of ethics.
What were the reviews like for these places that had false advertising? So far I've only stayed at places that had good reviews.
) the users didn't look at the AirBnB map and only looked the instructions received a day or 2 before arriving
) the users noticed but didn't care
If you're visiting a city you've never been to you're more likely not to care. If on the other hand you're visiting a city you're familiar with (me) then you're more likely to be using the map to choose a place you actually know.
I don't know where you live but I'm sure you know some places where the difference of a 1-3 blocks would be the difference between some place you want to stay vs some place you don't. Next to a freeway/highway vs not. In a safe neighborhood vs in a dangerous neighborhood. On a scenic street vs on a non-scenic street.
For others maybe people are more forgiving. Example: I only rent 1 bedroom or larger because loud refrigerators keep me awake. (at least in the USA where they are loud) So when a listing lied about a studio being a 1 bedroom it meant I didn't sleep well the entire time. If that kind of noise doesn't bother you then you're not going to complain.
Similarly if you rent a place that says it comes with parking but you don't bring a car then you're not likely to complain about false advertising. If you come to a place to sight-see then you might not care about limited internet where as if you rent a place for a business trip then you probably do care since you'll likely be trying to do work from the place.
Finally the fact that hosts are people you actually interact with one-on-one makes it harder to leave a bad review for most people. It's easy to leave a bad review for Marriott. It's not so easy to leave a bad review for Jane ArtStudent renting out her apartment for extra cash while she stays with her S.O. She was really nice when she handed over the keys. It feels bad to give her a bad review so I'm guessing people pull their punches. I know I have even when I probably shouldn't have because the people I rented from felt like nice people even if they were falsely advertising.
I've learned my lesson though and now leave 1 star reviews if they lied to me.