I don't know if you live in a building where someone is AirBnB'ing their apartment out, but it's not the most pleasant thing. A lot of weirdos in my building and I get paranoid every time I come to Vietnam for a few months.
Because we have the right to feel comfortable or safe in our homes. I know my neighbors, I trust them, or don't trust them as the case may be, but they're my neighbors.
Given that so much of NYC is apartment buildings, where your safety, property values, and overall well-being is more intimately entwined with your neighbors' than in a traditional suburban neighborhood, people take the community of a building very seriously. There is no way that having strangers randomly inhabiting that building can improve the community.
BTW, if the law were revoked, or restructured in such a way that it wasn't technically legal, and then building boards in NYC could make it against the building rules to AirBnB apartments in that building, would that satisfy your objection?
Because I'd be fine with that, and i guarantee that 95% of buildings in NYC would have that rule within days.
I would argue just the opposite - you do not have the right to feel safe or comfortable in your home. If you feel unsafe then the only right you have is to move (obviously unless what makes you feel unsafe is something like theft or you being attacked).
My objection stems from the fact that people sharing their own apartment with strangers is a scenario where two or more consenting adults agree on a peaceful transaction. Making it illegal then treats that peaceful action as something hostile.
If the law were revoked or restructured, as you mentioned, and the owner of the building (maybe what you meant by building boards) made it against building rules, then that would certainly satisfy my objection. The owners most definitely have the right to do with their property as they see fit.
"you do not have the right to feel safe or comfortable in your home" Really? If I feel unsafe, I have the right to get that rectified within the confines of the law. When one chooses an apartment to buy/rent, the neighborhood is part of that equation. If all of a sudden I live in a hotel, that's not what I signed up for, and there are special zoning laws to protect residents from this kind of profiteering for the sake of it that destroys a neighborhood's culture.
Given the sublet abuse where there are people subletting apartments with 50 year old rent controlled apartments (500 dollars a month for 4 bedroom apartments) on West End Ave, I think NYC should take a quick look at itself, since WWII ended...a while back.
NYC rentals are hotels and always have been...and thats not a bad thing.
Agreed. It strikes me as correct that if I rent/own an apartment in NYC, I should not have to deal with my neighbor's AirBnB business. There is room for compromise, but I would tend to favor putting the burden on AirBnB.
You're still skirting hotel regulations and occupancy taxes. There's a difference between, "My friend's coming to stay for awhile," and "$100/night to stay at Chateau d'Moi!"
No different, IMO. I live in a typical suburb - 4 bedroom homes, quarter acre lots. I don't want my neighbor running a B&B.
Is there room for compromise? Maybe. On general principle, I wouldn't mind my neighbor renting his house for a few weeks while he's on vacation. But, if the renter isn't a good guest (noisy). Or, instead of one renter for the duration, it's a new guest each night, I probably have a problem. Until AirBnB can convince me nothing like that will happen, I'd just as soon keep the rules as they are.
There's a bunch of free-standing houses scattered through Inwood and Marble Hill. Not that they're a large portion of Manhattan's housing stock, and they're certainly not central, but they're there.
That listing's claiming to be the only free-standing mansion - which sounds a bit arbitrary to me.
A good compromise for a start might be something about maximum number of nights per year allowed. Later on, the government can get out from regulating what people do with their property.
This gets at a distinction I think matters: landlords vs individual owners. Landlords using AirBnB strikes me as against the ideal of AirBnB and I am not happy that they allow this. In fact when I try to locate an AirBnB spot, I always try to single out the ones that aren't from landlords but from actual individual owners (not always obvious).
My roommate and I ruled out moving to NYC about a month ago when we started reading about NY and NYC government.
I was going to visit for a few months at my roommate's insistence. According to this, it's legal as long as I rent for at least a month, but I'm becoming less and less inclined to visit at all.
I get AirBnB as a service, I really do, but it isn't win-win all around for everyone involved, specifically in big cities where real estate is a precious commodity. Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings, renters lose out on available space, airbnb customers lose out on protection of the law (though they have the protection of the company, but the two are not equivalent).
Not only have I seen it in my building, but I've seen it in other friend's buildings, in condos that they've bought (I rent). It's a shitty situation for them having strangers consistently churning through the property. Nothing bad has happened yet, but would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?
No, but the fact that it's illegal to rent out a building I own for a few weeks while I'm on vacation is another paper cut among the many I have already received when researching NY and NYC government. This wouldn't affect me directly (as I've said, living there was ruled out), but I don't approve. It does, therefore, influence my inclination to visit. If this were the only issue, it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I'd just declare it as unfortunate and visit for longer than 29 days to avoid legal issues.
>Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings
I agree with this, but this sounds like a problem to be handled by the owner of the establishment, not a problem to be handled by government.
>renters lose out on available space
Only if those renters are offering places for short term visits anyway. I have no idea whether that's a common scenario, but leasers are hardly missing out because I'm renting out an extra room.
>would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?
I probably wouldn't, but I still don't consider it to be the government's job to ensure that it isn't happening.
> I agree with this, but this sounds like a problem to be handled by the owner of the establishment, not a problem to be handled by government.
Even hard core libertarian recognize one function of government it to enforce contracts. Without the government stepping in, what do you suggest? Have Boris from Brighton Beach enforce the contract?
Isn't eviction the answer to a violation of my lease? I haven't suggested that the government shouldn't enforce contracts. Only that I don't see the need for there to be a law governing what I can do with my own property. I'm not even sure this is a very libertarian stance.
You can't evict someone that owns the apartment they are air'ing out. (What is the correct verb for this? Anyone know? Airbnb'ing? Air'ing?) Even in a coop it is incredibly difficult to make that move, if not impossible.
If they own it, I assert that they have the right to "air it out", as you put it, regardless of my own objections. This is the same issue I have with regulated lawn maintenance.
That's why we have courts. You take a problem to court when it becomes a problem. You don't punish an entire city for something some people might or even will do.
You could, but then you would be limiting personal freedoms for those that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that flies in the face of everything this country and its constitution stand for. One of these days it will be your favorite thing (large sodas, salt, what's next, NYC?) that is outlawed because someone else might be causing a problem with it.
Well, I don't live in the US anyway, but I think there has to be a trade off in a civilised society because we have a huge volume of history telling us that without these sorts of restrictions people get screwed over at every turn.
Some of my favourite things are illegal and I will lobby to get the laws in those areas changed where I don't think that the potential negative impact on society is too great.
I get where you're coming from. And I get the logic of your argument. But history has also shown us, time and again, that when you give one or more people power they will abuse it, even if intentions were originally good (you need only to look at your nearest government to find abuse of power). Also one person's definition of negative is often not the same as another's (and when you have 350 million people with different opinions, you are certain to have disagreement). The big question is, who gets to make the decision about who's definition of "bad" is right? Who has the authority to tell me I can't have salt, or drink more than 16oz of soda, or own pistol magazines with a capacity of more than 7 rounds with which to defend my life, or profit from property I own? When I have committed no crime, who has the right to compel me to do these things? In my opinion, it's a massive overreach, plain and simple.
Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.
> leasers are hardly missing out because I'm renting out an extra room.
It's not just you though. If the owner of the room has decided that it's more profitable to just use the room as a hotel room rather than leasing (which is very possible in many situations) then the room is effectively off the market.
Price yes, search time unlikely. I use AirBnb, and the system is that you contact (usually a few) properties to check their availability (not all properties have up-to-date availabilities on the website). They reply confirming availability, and you reply confirming your booking.
In my experience this usually takes a day or two.
I can find and book a reasonably priced (i.e., none too luxurious) hotel room in NYC in about 15 minutes, in comparison.
AirBnb's system is relatively hassle-free, but time savings against Kayak/Expedia/Hipmunk? Not a chance.
Eh, if you're the sort of person who's not going to even visit because of the oh-so-oppressive Bloomberg regime, we'd rather not have you.
Believe me, I have objections to some of the government policies here, and I'm looking forward to getting some new blood in the mayor's office, but refusing to visit a city because of unstated political objections (though AirBnB bans are somehow part of it) strikes me as capricious at best.
When I say "visit", I actually mean "stay for a few months". Otherwise, why visit at all? I mean spending a week would be fine, but I don't think I'd get the experience I'd want, and staying for a month or more doesn't have the appeal it would have if I didn't have such objections.
But what are those objections? It's one of the largest cities in the world, it has very low crime, a great arts scene, one of the best mass transit systems in the country, etc. etc. etc.
Mostly these sorts of things. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of even temporary residence in NY or NYC. It's a shame too, because I really liked the idea of a few places in NY state.
On the other hand, the property(=building) owner (both in rental and bostadsrätt/semi-owned apartments) can require a valid reason for renting out (e.g. travel) and limit the maximum time.
I can believe it. Sweden has a highly regulated renter's market. For instance, you're not allowed to sublet at a cost substantially higher than the average cost of publicly owned housing. People have successfully rented a luxury apartment, then gone to court to get the price difference back.
Since February 1, 2013 you can no longer get rent back retroactively [1]. You can still send a complaint but then the landlord might refuse to extend your (usually short-term) contract.
Considering that there are tens of thousands of people kept captive as sex workers in NYC, the decision to crack down on something like airbnb illustrates the strength of the corruption used to maintain the status quo.
These kinds of conservative (status-quo preserving) laws are usually exactly that, even if there is some social or humanitarian justification made for their existence.
Not sure that a somewhat supported "... [t]here are thousands of trafficked women in San Francisco ..." makes a reasonable basis for asserting that there are "tens of thousands of people kept captive as sex workers".
Not to imply in any way that human trafficking is not a significant problem that deserves our attention, but not as a justification for any laws around AirB&B.
NY has a significantly larger population than SF and has the same kind of sex worker infrastructure.
My point is that cracking down on human trafficking does not benefit established interests, while cracking down on AirBnB does, even though there is clearly great harm to those who are enslaved as sex workers and no harm to those who decide to save money on a hotel by staying in an AirBnB room.
I live in a postgraduate student residence that we are only allowed to sublet to alumni and friends/family of residents.
Accepting that people have a need to sublet avoiding the cost of a empty room is combined with the community's need not to have weirdo's. Despite being in the center of London, it is like a small village.
What hasn't been included so far is the need for a airbnb host to include his community needs which is presumably where the law is coming from.
This is unhappy news. I was hoping to visit NYC later this year and, for the price of a pretty underwhelming hotel room, there were hundreds of apartments in interesting suburbs.
People will continue to do it, there are still sublets all over NYC. Just use craigslist. AirBNB listings are always overpriced anyways.
The real issue in NYC is squatting. Remember, it takes almost 8 months to go through housing court to get someone evicted in this city. A subtenant could overstay their stay and there's not much you could do about it other than go through this process. A workaround may be to not have any written sublease agreement, get paid in cash only, and call the subtenant a guest.
IANAL but I believe if the tenant can show you accepted rent it counts as a month to month lease and standard eviction process applies [0]. I don't know what it takes to show that but in general nyc courts are pretty tenant friendly.
FWIW, if this is really a concern for you, there are tons of hotels in interesting suburbs/outer boroughs now. You can stay in Brooklyn, Queens, in vibrant, non-corporate neighborhoods in interesting boutique hotels.
My original thinking was that an outer borough would be more cost-effective, but my token Friend Who Knows NYC told me that if I'm visiting and I expect to do any business, stay in Manhattan.
I've lived in NYC for over 15 years, and as a resident, AirBnB is definitely a net negative for me and others in my cohort--full time residents.
1. Who wants transients moving about your building? I'm sure most of them are nice, but they are certainly not as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior as full time residents.
2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
3. If I knew a neighbor was doing very short term sublets via AirBnB, or a similar service, I would definitely report them to the building management company or Police.
4. People need to think carefully about the "sharing economy." Not all applications of this paradigm are a net positive, and despite the hacker ethos not all laws are meant to broken. Many laws that have the effect of protecting entrenched players (hotels in this case), also serve valuable consumer protection functions.
You don't honour your choice of nickname very well.
In the case of AirBnB, you want to restrict a system that reduces inefficiencies in the allocation of living space on the base of nebulous fears, giving authority to prosecute victimless crimes to the government?
The only negative externality he mentions is some vague handwaving about "neighborly behavior". With no evidence to back it up, for all we know, the transients make better neighbors than long-term residents.
Spoken like someone who has never lived in NYC. We live in such proximity to our neighbors that their behavior has a larger impact than in most places. I had problems with an airbnber just two weeks ago when they had 50+ people partying in the loft above mine. Friends have reported similar experiences.
It was purposely vague to avoid an example/counter-example flame war. It's better to think of this in the aggregate. As a full time resident would you rather live in a building of full time residents who keep similar schedules and are invested in keeping the building nice, or would you rather live in a building of transients who have no vested interest in the long-term upkeep of your building.
Another way to look at it: Do you take better care of the car that you own, or the car that you rent?
Well... if I rent a really nice car, I take care of it better than my own ;) Having said that, I live in a Philadelphia neighborhood where it's in the deed to the house that you're not allowed to rent your property out, and it's absolutely helped keep things really nice. There was one house that rented out to college students up until this past year - the grass was always overgrown, and the new owner of the house ended up having to replace doors, walls, you name it. Got a good deal on an otherwise great house though.
I think the nature of housing in NYC makes it difficult for AirBnB places to function the same as they do in, say, Asheville NC. Renting a house is one thing, renting an apartment with a shared entrance and more permanent tenants attached to nearly every other wall is different in so many ways.
Sorry for the ad hominem, but this attitude screams "I've never really used AirBnB seriously, so I don't know what I'm talking about"
I'd say the overwhelming majority of AirBnB hosts don't rent out their rooms to just anybody. They vet candidates to make sure they are respectful people with whom they themselves would get along and whom they think are going to be as respectful if not more respectful of their own property. At the end of the day, your long-term neighbors, people you apparently are fond of and trust have chosen to hand over the keys to their apartment to people they have decided to trust based on some criteria of their own choosing. It's perfectly natural to extend my trust with person A to person B, if I know person A trusts person B.
One of my friends is the number one AirBnB/Couchsurfing host AFAIK. Something like 700+ people have stayed with him between both sites over the past few years and I think he has had maybe 1-2 bad experiences, and those experiences did not involve the person being disrespectful of the building, property or neighbors, but just being people of a generally unpleasant attitude.
People treat hotel rooms shitty, but they generally treat an AirBnB rental with respect because they know that that is somebody's home and that someone trusted them with their home. The actual, implied or imagined presence of others does have a positive impact on behavior. Social influence, specifically compliance, most definitely is a factor at play, both in terms of the hosts expectations of the guest and the fact that each and every AirBnB guest has a reputation to upkeep in order to maintain good standing on the site.
God everyone knows transients are awful. Hell, renters are awful (have you ever run a rental property?) People just give less of a shit about where they live when they don't have a long term investment in the place. Go live in a rental building versus a co-op and tell me you don't notice a difference. Well those people in the co-op pay a premium not to live in a rental building and Airbnb profits by destroying the quality that results in that premium.
Then the co-op should have no problem regulating this internally. There's no reason to get full protection of the law, with all the unintended consequences it brings with it.
It depends entirely on the scale of the problem. One or two rental units in a co-op? Can be handled internally. Someone on a quiet residential block opening up a full-fledged AirBnB hotel? That's a problem that cannot be solved internally.
The question he asks is: We're feeding on this excess supply until it's all gone--then what? For instance, regarding your point (2), to live in NYC will it become necessary for everyone to become a part-time landlord to make rent as rents escalate?
I haven't read the article but I thought you pointed out something really interesting about everyone needing to become a part-time landlord to make rent as rents escalate. Would it be possible that as people are becoming part-time landlords, rents will escalate anyway as a result of additional income disposal and cash inflows to the city?
AirBnB saved my bacon trying to find a permanent place to stay in NYC. It was literally the leg-up I needed to deal with the brokerage mafia in NY. For example, 3 months of temporary housing until finding a permanent abode through the 'usual channels' still incurs the entire years brokerage fee. Absolutely ridiculous. Sure, there's transients, but everyone's needs are different and people need to be cognizant of the overall fluidity of the market and its many moving parts. Thanks AirBnb! :)
I completely agree that there are negative externalities to AirBNB, so I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. But point #2, the rising rents thing, seems unlikely to me.
AirBNB increases the supply of housing. It does nothing to demand. Prices should drop. I imagine it would either have no perceptible effect on rents, or in an extreme scenario would cause hotels to close and convert to apartments which would lower rents.
Finally, this is a common misconception, rents for hotels are identical to rents for residential housing. Otherwise why wouldn't ever landlord switch to running a hotel? It costs more per night to stay at one because (a) you're paying for excessive housekeeping and (b) you're paying for the high vacancy in downtimes caused by ultra-high turnover in tenants. Basically, a high proportion of the hotel fee is paying for actual services, not the building's rent.
Might be true in theory but not in NYC. There are constantly cases of illegal hotel conversions where landlords try to run their own hotels. That might be partially to avoid licensing (I know hotels in NYC need special permits) and taxes, but it's not the case that residential landlords don't want to run hotels.
This isn't true in NYC, we're at 98-99% utilization. If anything AirBNB makes this worse, it's encouraging people to rent an apartment to visitors instead of releasing it into the rental market.
If you look at a $169/night AirBNB rate, that translates into about $5000/month if it's fully rented. Even at a 90% you are making more money than a 12-month lease. This will encourage landlords to not lease vacant apartments, thus decreasing supply and raising prices. I know of building owners that have been experimenting with AirBNB as it's more profitable for them.
I've said elsewhere, but this is only true if short-term and long-term housing aren't fungible, which could only result from a messed up regulatory structure in need of some serious overhaul.
I think your estimate might possibly be to high: According to what I've been explained by friends who let rooms via AirBnB, you don't fill your rooms or apartment with "average" city rates. You will have to be on the lower end to do that and have a "clean" rating, too. That seems to be about $ 50 for rooms and about double for flats in NYC, therefore I would assume the actual income is more likely to be about half your estimate.
On top of that, there is an administrative overhead to normal renting of a flat. And, to be top-ranked, you have to be extra-nice to maintain an excellent rating on the site, too. Not so sure that beats the comforts renting with well-defined contracts...
I think AirBnB is for you or your family & friends if you want to use that apartment yourself at times, too, or if you are sharing a room in your flat to pay the mortgage, and similar such cases. It probably does not beat renting, otherwise I assume this service would have gone even more "viral" long ago...
Another factor: AirBNB increases the supply of temporary housing. It can only decrease the supply of 12-month leases. And since 12-month leases are in short supply...
Temporary and long-term housing should be fungible. I've learned from other commenters that maybe they're not due to the NYC regulatory structure. If so then that's creating horrible distortions, and maybe that's also the reason why AirBNB is so popular.
You can really only convert long-term housing into temporary housing. While technically the Holiday Inn is cool with me staying there as long as I want, they won't cut me a deal and charge me $400 / month instead of $100 / night.
The cheapest, sleeziest roadside motel I have ever seen anywhere in the country was $30 / night. For a month that would be $900 with no discount, but I have a hard time imagining that an apartment comparable to that motel was even $300.
1. It is impossible to stop transients from entering your building. Delivery guys, doors left open, friends coming over, etc. You cannot possibly control this and AirBNB at least vets the people coming to stay.
2. I don't understand this, it's already pervasive in NYC and rent has not moved. Why do you think all apartment units in the city will become hotel rooms?
> 1. Who wants transients moving about your building? I'm sure most of them are nice, but they are certainly not as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior as full time residents.
I wouldn't mind new people in the apartment next to mine. There are already plenty of laws to keep them from making too much noise. In fact, most tourists are probably better behaved than residents.
> 2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
Or hotels (with lower demand) will convert into residential housing, lowering rents and the price of living. I don't think its easy to say which way it would go.
This argument, while plausible, seems completely untested.
It should lead "AirBnB scares me..." not "AirBnB is definitely [anything -- good, bad, indifferent]". Until there are data and real experiences, you don't really know.
> 2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
Just do ridiculous rent control on more apartments. Doesn't everyone squat in rent-controlled apartments anyway? Remove the rent control and you'll see the real price.
1. so you want to limit the freedom of others to protect your comfort? what if someone moves in for the long term, but he's not "exhibiting neighbourly behavior"? is that acceptable to you?
2. you don't like a free market?
Laws are needed to prevent people being ripped off and generally taken advantage of. What this law from the past fails to cater for is that bad comments on AirBnB could well be as effective at safeguarding others against sub-standard rooms as the original law could ever be. Or much better and that must be a scary thought for legislators.
It seems that many people are against AirBnB in their neighbourhood because they they don't like strangers there all the time, it's not pleasant, nothing happened yet but it might... stuff like that.
I understand those concerns but I think people who think AirBnB should be illegal because of that are forgetting something. People benefit from being tolerant to each other.
Everybody is sometimes doing something that is not pleasant to others. If you are trying to be ok with that unless they are doing something really damaging, they might cut you some slack when you need it - and you _are_ going to need it and when you do, you might _really_ need it. Social pressure is usually enough and people mostly avoid doing things unpleasant to others unless it's somehow justified or considered necessary.
Otherwise you are going to live in an over-regulated society where everything that can be unpleasant to somebody is illegal, you need a permit for simplest things like throwing your kid a birthday party and everybody is worse off.
There's got to be an acceptable middle ground though. I really think this is an area where some regulation is needed. I wouldn't want my building to become a hotel, and I don't want housing to become more scarce because landlords see more value in using it as a hotel room. At the same time, I also don't want to stop my neighbors from doing what they want either.
One person commented that allowing a certain number of nights per year may be reasonable, and I'd tend to agree. It's a start, at least.
There's a point here, but there's also a line between tolerance and exploitation.
I'm not against my neighbor renting his place out for a month while he travels in Europe, and help pay for his vacation. That's the sort of neighborly thing I'm willing to be on board for.
But this, primarily, isn't the contentious issue. The contentious issue is when someone buys an apartment and rents it out full-time as a business venture. Me helping out his business venture by overlooking basic concerns isn't neighborly, it's being a pushover while he laughs his way to the bank.
> "Otherwise you are going to live in an over-regulated society where everything that can be unpleasant to somebody is illegal"
I agree. And the best way to prevent this over-regulation is to reign in bad actors without having to invoke the law. This is to say, AirBnb needs to go back to its roots as "I'm away from my apartment, who wants it" and not "I have 5 properties around the city".
Being tolerant to each other is great, because like you said, there will come a time when that person is tolerant to you in return.
Unless they're in your apartment building on a one night rental. Then, you'll never see them again and they have zero incentive to stay on your good side.
I think you are completely missing the point. The favour does not necessarily need to be returned by the same people. It's about tolerance accepted as general social value.
Lets say that tolerance is some kind of a deal with society - lets all try to be tolerant and we will all benefit - we all have to do our part and if we do we build something together and we are more likely that others will tolerate our annoying habits (or sexual orientation or religion or whatever).
Also you could say that this specific ' AirBnB tolerance deal' could be more like please tolerate my guests because I need their money right now and I will tolerate your [something annoying that you certainly do].
I think it's a bit much to expect a moral and social revolution just to support AirBnB.
People are nice to people they're going to see again and generally indifferent/inconsiderate towards people they won't see. That goes double for new york.
I would like to know if AirBnB is covering the $2,400 assessed penalty on behalf of Nigel Warren.
I am also curious about the immediate steps AirBnB is taking to address this, not the long term lobbying effort mentioned at the end of the article. For example, will AirBnB disallow NYC listings under 29 days until this is resolved? Or will they let people roll the dice with disclaimers that such rentals may violate local law and result court assessed fines.
As naive as this may sound, especially for a company that is likely already valued over $1 billion, this is a golden opportunity for AirBnB to gain unparallelled media and bolster main stream support.
As naive as this may sound, especially for a company that
is likely already valued over $1 billion, this is a
golden opportunity for AirBnB to gain unparallelled media
and bolster main stream support.
I don't know if that's the case - in fact, it might be the exact opposite. People are growing increasingly tired of companies like Uber and Airbnb using libertarian talking points to rally supporters, whenever regulation gets in their way.
This post is proof enough there is push back, and a voice against neighbors renting out to "unknowns" on short term basis.
Coincidentally, your use of libertarian talking point caught me off guard, not that I think it is wrong, but I would have thought "conservative" talking points would be more on point. That is conservatives would generally take the approach that individuals have the freedom to contract especially for their own assets and the ever increasing size and reach of government is intruding on our economic ability and freedom to contract.
Back to your point the situation is what it is for AirBnB in NYC, some will certainly see adversity but others will see opportunity.
The political views you describe are more precisely termed libertarian (small L), than conservative. Though they could arguably be attributed to both groups.
I visited NYC a few months ago and met someone who just moved to Manhattan from Boston. I asked about how she found a place to live and she said it was the worst experience she's ever had. She said that it was impossible to find apartments for rent online, so she was basically forced to walk around the neighborhoods knocking on doors to find an apartment. Half the apartments said they were full, and the other half wouldn't even let her in the lobby.
She ended up biting the bullet and hiring an apartment hunter. All of a sudden a ton of apartments had rooms available, including some of the apartments who told her they were full or didn't let her in the lobby.
That told me there is a ton of politics involved in the leasing market in NYC. It doesn't surprise me at all they don't like things like Airbnb.
I've used Airbnb to stay in Manhattan last winter and it's a shame that it comes to this since I was planning to use it again.
The thing that made us use airbnb was two folds: Having a kitchen was important to us (quick breakfast eating whatever we want) and also the feeling of "living in the Big Apple".
Second part would have been impossible with hotels. Sad really.
As for some rants about AirBnber's "not being as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior".
The same could be said about other cultures moving in your neighborhood.
I'm a New Yorker here and plain and simple, we don't want AirBnB. This is New York City and the residents of this city have time and time again voiced their displeasure towards AirBnB, so why are people from elsewhere saying this is a bad thing?
132 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadI'm kind of +1 on this.
Given that so much of NYC is apartment buildings, where your safety, property values, and overall well-being is more intimately entwined with your neighbors' than in a traditional suburban neighborhood, people take the community of a building very seriously. There is no way that having strangers randomly inhabiting that building can improve the community.
BTW, if the law were revoked, or restructured in such a way that it wasn't technically legal, and then building boards in NYC could make it against the building rules to AirBnB apartments in that building, would that satisfy your objection?
Because I'd be fine with that, and i guarantee that 95% of buildings in NYC would have that rule within days.
My objection stems from the fact that people sharing their own apartment with strangers is a scenario where two or more consenting adults agree on a peaceful transaction. Making it illegal then treats that peaceful action as something hostile.
If the law were revoked or restructured, as you mentioned, and the owner of the building (maybe what you meant by building boards) made it against building rules, then that would certainly satisfy my objection. The owners most definitely have the right to do with their property as they see fit.
NYC rentals are hotels and always have been...and thats not a bad thing.
Which is what AirBnB is essentially?
Is there room for compromise? Maybe. On general principle, I wouldn't mind my neighbor renting his house for a few weeks while he's on vacation. But, if the renter isn't a good guest (noisy). Or, instead of one renter for the duration, it's a new guest each night, I probably have a problem. Until AirBnB can convince me nothing like that will happen, I'd just as soon keep the rules as they are.
That listing's claiming to be the only free-standing mansion - which sounds a bit arbitrary to me.
The second on the other hand... governments all regulate what you can do on your property. Who wants a night club upstairs?
Just because it's to expensive to "own" a decent house in this part of the world I have to dance when someone shouts?
I was going to visit for a few months at my roommate's insistence. According to this, it's legal as long as I rent for at least a month, but I'm becoming less and less inclined to visit at all.
I get AirBnB as a service, I really do, but it isn't win-win all around for everyone involved, specifically in big cities where real estate is a precious commodity. Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings, renters lose out on available space, airbnb customers lose out on protection of the law (though they have the protection of the company, but the two are not equivalent).
Not only have I seen it in my building, but I've seen it in other friend's buildings, in condos that they've bought (I rent). It's a shitty situation for them having strangers consistently churning through the property. Nothing bad has happened yet, but would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?
No, but the fact that it's illegal to rent out a building I own for a few weeks while I'm on vacation is another paper cut among the many I have already received when researching NY and NYC government. This wouldn't affect me directly (as I've said, living there was ruled out), but I don't approve. It does, therefore, influence my inclination to visit. If this were the only issue, it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I'd just declare it as unfortunate and visit for longer than 29 days to avoid legal issues.
>Neighbors lose by having strangers in their buildings
I agree with this, but this sounds like a problem to be handled by the owner of the establishment, not a problem to be handled by government.
>renters lose out on available space
Only if those renters are offering places for short term visits anyway. I have no idea whether that's a common scenario, but leasers are hardly missing out because I'm renting out an extra room.
>would you want that whole awkward scenario happening on your front step?
I probably wouldn't, but I still don't consider it to be the government's job to ensure that it isn't happening.
Even hard core libertarian recognize one function of government it to enforce contracts. Without the government stepping in, what do you suggest? Have Boris from Brighton Beach enforce the contract?
Some of my favourite things are illegal and I will lobby to get the laws in those areas changed where I don't think that the potential negative impact on society is too great.
Outcomes are important, not just principles.
Another question you should be asking yourself is: who stands to profit financially from this decision? That will almost invariably lead you to the reason why the decision was made.
It's not just you though. If the owner of the room has decided that it's more profitable to just use the room as a hotel room rather than leasing (which is very possible in many situations) then the room is effectively off the market.
But they win on price and search time (which is equivalent to money)?
In my experience this usually takes a day or two.
I can find and book a reasonably priced (i.e., none too luxurious) hotel room in NYC in about 15 minutes, in comparison.
AirBnb's system is relatively hassle-free, but time savings against Kayak/Expedia/Hipmunk? Not a chance.
Believe me, I have objections to some of the government policies here, and I'm looking forward to getting some new blood in the mayor's office, but refusing to visit a city because of unstated political objections (though AirBnB bans are somehow part of it) strikes me as capricious at best.
http://www.nydailynews.com/privacy-overrated-article-1.13286...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/coder-charged-for-g...
Mostly these sorts of things. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of even temporary residence in NY or NYC. It's a shame too, because I really liked the idea of a few places in NY state.
Spoken like a true new yorker -- you have proven your residency.
On the other hand, the property(=building) owner (both in rental and bostadsrätt/semi-owned apartments) can require a valid reason for renting out (e.g. travel) and limit the maximum time.
[1] http://www.konsumentverket.se/Nyheter/Nyhetsarkiv/Nyhetsarki... (in Swedish)
These kinds of conservative (status-quo preserving) laws are usually exactly that, even if there is some social or humanitarian justification made for their existence.
same in NY
Not to imply in any way that human trafficking is not a significant problem that deserves our attention, but not as a justification for any laws around AirB&B.
My point is that cracking down on human trafficking does not benefit established interests, while cracking down on AirBnB does, even though there is clearly great harm to those who are enslaved as sex workers and no harm to those who decide to save money on a hotel by staying in an AirBnB room.
Accepting that people have a need to sublet avoiding the cost of a empty room is combined with the community's need not to have weirdo's. Despite being in the center of London, it is like a small village.
What hasn't been included so far is the need for a airbnb host to include his community needs which is presumably where the law is coming from.
Oh well. At least San Francisco is still OK.
The real issue in NYC is squatting. Remember, it takes almost 8 months to go through housing court to get someone evicted in this city. A subtenant could overstay their stay and there's not much you could do about it other than go through this process. A workaround may be to not have any written sublease agreement, get paid in cash only, and call the subtenant a guest.
[0] http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html#1...
1. Who wants transients moving about your building? I'm sure most of them are nice, but they are certainly not as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior as full time residents.
2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
3. If I knew a neighbor was doing very short term sublets via AirBnB, or a similar service, I would definitely report them to the building management company or Police.
4. People need to think carefully about the "sharing economy." Not all applications of this paradigm are a net positive, and despite the hacker ethos not all laws are meant to broken. Many laws that have the effect of protecting entrenched players (hotels in this case), also serve valuable consumer protection functions.
In the case of AirBnB, you want to restrict a system that reduces inefficiencies in the allocation of living space on the base of nebulous fears, giving authority to prosecute victimless crimes to the government?
I disagree.
Another way to look at it: Do you take better care of the car that you own, or the car that you rent?
I think the nature of housing in NYC makes it difficult for AirBnB places to function the same as they do in, say, Asheville NC. Renting a house is one thing, renting an apartment with a shared entrance and more permanent tenants attached to nearly every other wall is different in so many ways.
I am pretty careful.
I'd say the overwhelming majority of AirBnB hosts don't rent out their rooms to just anybody. They vet candidates to make sure they are respectful people with whom they themselves would get along and whom they think are going to be as respectful if not more respectful of their own property. At the end of the day, your long-term neighbors, people you apparently are fond of and trust have chosen to hand over the keys to their apartment to people they have decided to trust based on some criteria of their own choosing. It's perfectly natural to extend my trust with person A to person B, if I know person A trusts person B.
One of my friends is the number one AirBnB/Couchsurfing host AFAIK. Something like 700+ people have stayed with him between both sites over the past few years and I think he has had maybe 1-2 bad experiences, and those experiences did not involve the person being disrespectful of the building, property or neighbors, but just being people of a generally unpleasant attitude.
People treat hotel rooms shitty, but they generally treat an AirBnB rental with respect because they know that that is somebody's home and that someone trusted them with their home. The actual, implied or imagined presence of others does have a positive impact on behavior. Social influence, specifically compliance, most definitely is a factor at play, both in terms of the hosts expectations of the guest and the fact that each and every AirBnB guest has a reputation to upkeep in order to maintain good standing on the site.
The question he asks is: We're feeding on this excess supply until it's all gone--then what? For instance, regarding your point (2), to live in NYC will it become necessary for everyone to become a part-time landlord to make rent as rents escalate?
AirBNB increases the supply of housing. It does nothing to demand. Prices should drop. I imagine it would either have no perceptible effect on rents, or in an extreme scenario would cause hotels to close and convert to apartments which would lower rents.
Finally, this is a common misconception, rents for hotels are identical to rents for residential housing. Otherwise why wouldn't ever landlord switch to running a hotel? It costs more per night to stay at one because (a) you're paying for excessive housekeeping and (b) you're paying for the high vacancy in downtimes caused by ultra-high turnover in tenants. Basically, a high proportion of the hotel fee is paying for actual services, not the building's rent.
If you look at a $169/night AirBNB rate, that translates into about $5000/month if it's fully rented. Even at a 90% you are making more money than a 12-month lease. This will encourage landlords to not lease vacant apartments, thus decreasing supply and raising prices. I know of building owners that have been experimenting with AirBNB as it's more profitable for them.
On top of that, there is an administrative overhead to normal renting of a flat. And, to be top-ranked, you have to be extra-nice to maintain an excellent rating on the site, too. Not so sure that beats the comforts renting with well-defined contracts...
I think AirBnB is for you or your family & friends if you want to use that apartment yourself at times, too, or if you are sharing a room in your flat to pay the mortgage, and similar such cases. It probably does not beat renting, otherwise I assume this service would have gone even more "viral" long ago...
That's your error, see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
Temporary and long-term housing should be fungible. I've learned from other commenters that maybe they're not due to the NYC regulatory structure. If so then that's creating horrible distortions, and maybe that's also the reason why AirBNB is so popular.
The cheapest, sleeziest roadside motel I have ever seen anywhere in the country was $30 / night. For a month that would be $900 with no discount, but I have a hard time imagining that an apartment comparable to that motel was even $300.
1. It is impossible to stop transients from entering your building. Delivery guys, doors left open, friends coming over, etc. You cannot possibly control this and AirBNB at least vets the people coming to stay.
2. I don't understand this, it's already pervasive in NYC and rent has not moved. Why do you think all apartment units in the city will become hotel rooms?
I wouldn't mind new people in the apartment next to mine. There are already plenty of laws to keep them from making too much noise. In fact, most tourists are probably better behaved than residents.
> 2. If AirBnB became a serious economic force in NYC, it would only make my outrageously expensive city more expensive as apartment rents converged upwards towards hotel rates.
Or hotels (with lower demand) will convert into residential housing, lowering rents and the price of living. I don't think its easy to say which way it would go.
It should lead "AirBnB scares me..." not "AirBnB is definitely [anything -- good, bad, indifferent]". Until there are data and real experiences, you don't really know.
Just do ridiculous rent control on more apartments. Doesn't everyone squat in rent-controlled apartments anyway? Remove the rent control and you'll see the real price.
You mean like people renting an apartment only to find out the rest of the place is being used as a hotel?
I understand those concerns but I think people who think AirBnB should be illegal because of that are forgetting something. People benefit from being tolerant to each other.
Everybody is sometimes doing something that is not pleasant to others. If you are trying to be ok with that unless they are doing something really damaging, they might cut you some slack when you need it - and you _are_ going to need it and when you do, you might _really_ need it. Social pressure is usually enough and people mostly avoid doing things unpleasant to others unless it's somehow justified or considered necessary.
Otherwise you are going to live in an over-regulated society where everything that can be unpleasant to somebody is illegal, you need a permit for simplest things like throwing your kid a birthday party and everybody is worse off.
One person commented that allowing a certain number of nights per year may be reasonable, and I'd tend to agree. It's a start, at least.
I'm not against my neighbor renting his place out for a month while he travels in Europe, and help pay for his vacation. That's the sort of neighborly thing I'm willing to be on board for.
But this, primarily, isn't the contentious issue. The contentious issue is when someone buys an apartment and rents it out full-time as a business venture. Me helping out his business venture by overlooking basic concerns isn't neighborly, it's being a pushover while he laughs his way to the bank.
> "Otherwise you are going to live in an over-regulated society where everything that can be unpleasant to somebody is illegal"
I agree. And the best way to prevent this over-regulation is to reign in bad actors without having to invoke the law. This is to say, AirBnb needs to go back to its roots as "I'm away from my apartment, who wants it" and not "I have 5 properties around the city".
Unless they're in your apartment building on a one night rental. Then, you'll never see them again and they have zero incentive to stay on your good side.
Lets say that tolerance is some kind of a deal with society - lets all try to be tolerant and we will all benefit - we all have to do our part and if we do we build something together and we are more likely that others will tolerate our annoying habits (or sexual orientation or religion or whatever).
Also you could say that this specific ' AirBnB tolerance deal' could be more like please tolerate my guests because I need their money right now and I will tolerate your [something annoying that you certainly do].
People are nice to people they're going to see again and generally indifferent/inconsiderate towards people they won't see. That goes double for new york.
I am also curious about the immediate steps AirBnB is taking to address this, not the long term lobbying effort mentioned at the end of the article. For example, will AirBnB disallow NYC listings under 29 days until this is resolved? Or will they let people roll the dice with disclaimers that such rentals may violate local law and result court assessed fines.
As naive as this may sound, especially for a company that is likely already valued over $1 billion, this is a golden opportunity for AirBnB to gain unparallelled media and bolster main stream support.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5612159
Coincidentally, your use of libertarian talking point caught me off guard, not that I think it is wrong, but I would have thought "conservative" talking points would be more on point. That is conservatives would generally take the approach that individuals have the freedom to contract especially for their own assets and the ever increasing size and reach of government is intruding on our economic ability and freedom to contract.
Back to your point the situation is what it is for AirBnB in NYC, some will certainly see adversity but others will see opportunity.
She ended up biting the bullet and hiring an apartment hunter. All of a sudden a ton of apartments had rooms available, including some of the apartments who told her they were full or didn't let her in the lobby.
That told me there is a ton of politics involved in the leasing market in NYC. It doesn't surprise me at all they don't like things like Airbnb.
The thing that made us use airbnb was two folds: Having a kitchen was important to us (quick breakfast eating whatever we want) and also the feeling of "living in the Big Apple".
Second part would have been impossible with hotels. Sad really.
As for some rants about AirBnber's "not being as invested in exhibiting neighborly behavior".
The same could be said about other cultures moving in your neighborhood.
The shoe just doesn't fit here.