This is one of the best arguments I've seen recently supporting airbnb. However, I'd be curious to see how these numbers would be affected by removing all the undesirable airbnb arrangements - the ones where people are causing hell or even nuisances for their neighbors, the ones where people are turning long-term rental units into under-the-table short term rentals, etc.
Wish the site would explain what their goal is beyond "New Yorkers want Airbnb". As someone who hasn't been keeping up with the latest news, I have no idea what even prompted this campaign and, as such, it makes the call to action pretty weak from my point of view. There's no FAQ explaining what is happening in NY or anything like that, just a page that lists facts which I'm sure were specifically picked out to paint the right light, while completely ignoring any of the arguments from the other side (e.g. neighbor troubles, parking troubles, etc).
> "I have been living in this apartment for 34 years"
If she's in lower Manhattan, I'd bet almost anything her apartment is rent-stabilized (and I think she's been here long enough to even have a rent-controlled apartment, potentially, though she might have missed the cutoff by a few years).
The bulk of the legal debate around Airbnb has nothing to do with rent-regulated apartments; it's the fact that in NYC, short-term subleases are illegal, period. (Most subleases are also violations of the original lease, though that's secondary).
The bulk of the economic debate is around the practical implications. If you're a renter (not owner) in NYC and renting out your apartment on Airbnb, one of two things is happening, economically:
1) You pay sub-market rent due to rent regulations (control or stabilization), and are making money off of this disparity between your rent and market rent. You are pocketing money that, if you were in a non-regulated apartment, would go to your landlord. (And since subletting regulated apartments is illegal, he will evict you and find a tenant to pay full price[0])
2) You are making additional money on a market rent, which essentially means that the rent you are paying is too low (from the perspective of the owner), and it will go up next year.
If I can make $200/week on my apartment (hypothetically) and my landlord knows that, he will simply raise my rent by $800/month when my lease is up for renewal. In either case, money eventually flows towards the property owner, whether this convergence happens immediately or with a slight delay. This has nothing to do with the regulation; it's just the basic economics of rent at play.
[0] The law in NYC is obviously incredibly complicated, but that's the eventual result.
EDIT: Fixed typo: should have been $800/month ($200/week for four weeks).
I agree with your larger analysis, and wish that Airbnb would essentially pack up and go home. But I don't think you're correct in assuming that rental rates and short term vacation rental rates are in the same economic bucket. That someone can make more off a property does not mean that the property is necessarily worth more, it may also mean it's zoned in a way that is economically locally suboptimal for that property. In this case that's relevant because hotels need to charge more for the same space because they pay very different taxes than homeowners. So an apartment wouldn't necessarily fetch that $800 more a month on the renters market, though it does in a different marketplace under a different premise (Airbnb and short term renting, respectively).
The different economic buckets exist largely because of regulations. The apartment might not fetch a full $800 per month in short term lets if property owners across Manhattan could charge the highest rent they wanted for the most profitable letting period, but it certainly wouldn't be possible for tenants to make a living off the difference between an artificially high price for [illegal] subletting and the artificially low price of renting long term for established tenants.
This video is pretty disingenuous in my opinion - it appears this woman remains in the home when people rent out a room (such that she share experiences with them according to the video). Looking through listings in NYC, this is not the common case at all - it's actually expected that a unit rented through Airbnb will be empty during your stay.
It's also getting more common that people are purchasing real estate for the sole purpose of renting it out through Airbnb. When I stayed in NYC via Airbnb, I never even met the owner of the unit (keys were dropped off at a coffee shop across the street) and it was very obvious that nobody ever lived in the unit.
I also have a problem with the tone of the video - "_I_ should be able to do this because it is a good thing for _me_." What about everyone else that lives in the building? They never signed up to live in a hotel. As a condo owner myself, I don't want random people that haven't been screened getting access to my otherwise secure building. I don't want to have to pay for any damage that they cause and I don't want to deal with any of the association rules that they break (noise regulations, pet regulations, parking, etc). While Airbnb might be great for the people renting out their home, it's a sum negative for everyone else legally living in the building.
"This video is pretty disingenuous in my opinion...
This was my thought too. This quote by architect Christopher Alexander from his book A Pattern Language" feels very relevant:
"…face-to-face rental, with the owners occupying the main structure is the one kind of rental relationship that is reasonably healthy. The landlord is actually there, so he is directly concerned with the well-being of the life around him and with the environment, unlike the absentee landlords who own property only for the money which it makes."
In the UK, we have huge numbers of buy-to-let landlords. They are the worst type of abstentee landlord. I see AirBnB operating in the same space.
People like having familiar neighbours, not neighbours who come and go contantly, and who have no commitment, concern or care for their neighbourhood; or for their immediate neighbours. Do these things matter to absentee landlords? For most of them (especially in the UK), absolutely not.
Housing has a social factor that cannot be ignored. In fact, it isn't ignored in countless countries who place restrictions on renting property for the very reasons above.
Not only is the video disingenuous in implying that the standard Airbnb host is someone who simply rents a room (which would not be subletting and would not be subject to nearly as many concerns), the other facts they have on the site support entirely different economic stimulus arguments, and entirely ignore the zoning and legal questions, where they know they are completely wrong.
It is frustrating to see Airbnb attempt to manipulate their way to winning. While we tend to hate people who abuse regulation to stay in power, Airbnb seems to be attempting to do the same from the other side. That they are already attempting this level of manipulation before having the level of power of the hotel lobby should give us some concern about a future in which Airbnb runs the vacation rentals game.
Yup. It started with the campaign touting the positive effects on the NYC economy, now it's the "let's pull some heartstrings" video.
For those who missed it, I've outlined my experience with AirBnB (as a non-host in a building with hosts) last week - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923849 (top comment)
For anyone defending AirBnB here's a nice list of things to read before you do so:
The gist of virtually all of the complaints against AirBNB is that it imposes costs on the neighbors.
And of course, it does.
There is a multitude of ways of dealing with that. If you cut the neighbors in on the action, they may take a liking to your side-business. A smart host will do just that.
At the end of the day, the only ones who can't be placated are the ones losing business because of this. The hotels. Well, that's just business.
I lived in a building where one of the tenants full-time rented out their unit on AirBnB. The "guests" would tag the elevator, make noise, and trash the hallways. Also, it felt very unsafe when a large group of 4-8 people would be crammed into a 1br apartment, and they'd be drunkenly stumbling through the otherwise quiet building.
Another problem is that even if you report that tenant, if they figure out who reported them, they may take revenge before they're evicted, since eviction proceedings take so long.
Funny that they aren't mentioning the 983 rentals in Manhattan that rent out the entire apartment, nearly all of which are illegal (any without a proper bed and breakfast license). Compare that number to the 967 private room and shared room listings in Manhattan, most of which - while not violating state law - are operating in violation of their lease. So, Airbnb is just glossing over the fact that the vast majority of their rentals in NYC are illegal. It's also interesting that they make no mention of the fact that their insurance policy only covers the renters personal possessions... not the building, common areas, appliances, etc.
Violating the lease is probably the biggest issue imo with Airbnb. I think part of it is that we so often gloss over legal contracts and the concept of airbnb where you can just "rent out a room" doesn't FEEL like anything wrong. If as a tenant you know it's wrong, it FEELs like a petty offense which you shouldn't be penalized for or it FEELs like a broken law.
Had a good laugh when I saw these posters on the subway (D) this morning on the way to a doctor's appointment. When a business gets on the bullhorn to tell you that they're a net positive for society, it's pretty much a given that there's something fishy going on in the background.
I'm not outright calling them scumbags right now, but I sure as heck will be doing a lot more research on the claims they're making about the effects they're having on my community.
21 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 64.5 ms ] threadIf she's in lower Manhattan, I'd bet almost anything her apartment is rent-stabilized (and I think she's been here long enough to even have a rent-controlled apartment, potentially, though she might have missed the cutoff by a few years).
The bulk of the legal debate around Airbnb has nothing to do with rent-regulated apartments; it's the fact that in NYC, short-term subleases are illegal, period. (Most subleases are also violations of the original lease, though that's secondary).
The bulk of the economic debate is around the practical implications. If you're a renter (not owner) in NYC and renting out your apartment on Airbnb, one of two things is happening, economically:
1) You pay sub-market rent due to rent regulations (control or stabilization), and are making money off of this disparity between your rent and market rent. You are pocketing money that, if you were in a non-regulated apartment, would go to your landlord. (And since subletting regulated apartments is illegal, he will evict you and find a tenant to pay full price[0])
2) You are making additional money on a market rent, which essentially means that the rent you are paying is too low (from the perspective of the owner), and it will go up next year.
If I can make $200/week on my apartment (hypothetically) and my landlord knows that, he will simply raise my rent by $800/month when my lease is up for renewal. In either case, money eventually flows towards the property owner, whether this convergence happens immediately or with a slight delay. This has nothing to do with the regulation; it's just the basic economics of rent at play.
[0] The law in NYC is obviously incredibly complicated, but that's the eventual result.
EDIT: Fixed typo: should have been $800/month ($200/week for four weeks).
It's also getting more common that people are purchasing real estate for the sole purpose of renting it out through Airbnb. When I stayed in NYC via Airbnb, I never even met the owner of the unit (keys were dropped off at a coffee shop across the street) and it was very obvious that nobody ever lived in the unit.
I also have a problem with the tone of the video - "_I_ should be able to do this because it is a good thing for _me_." What about everyone else that lives in the building? They never signed up to live in a hotel. As a condo owner myself, I don't want random people that haven't been screened getting access to my otherwise secure building. I don't want to have to pay for any damage that they cause and I don't want to deal with any of the association rules that they break (noise regulations, pet regulations, parking, etc). While Airbnb might be great for the people renting out their home, it's a sum negative for everyone else legally living in the building.
This was my thought too. This quote by architect Christopher Alexander from his book A Pattern Language" feels very relevant:
"…face-to-face rental, with the owners occupying the main structure is the one kind of rental relationship that is reasonably healthy. The landlord is actually there, so he is directly concerned with the well-being of the life around him and with the environment, unlike the absentee landlords who own property only for the money which it makes."
In the UK, we have huge numbers of buy-to-let landlords. They are the worst type of abstentee landlord. I see AirBnB operating in the same space.
People like having familiar neighbours, not neighbours who come and go contantly, and who have no commitment, concern or care for their neighbourhood; or for their immediate neighbours. Do these things matter to absentee landlords? For most of them (especially in the UK), absolutely not.
Housing has a social factor that cannot be ignored. In fact, it isn't ignored in countless countries who place restrictions on renting property for the very reasons above.
It is frustrating to see Airbnb attempt to manipulate their way to winning. While we tend to hate people who abuse regulation to stay in power, Airbnb seems to be attempting to do the same from the other side. That they are already attempting this level of manipulation before having the level of power of the hotel lobby should give us some concern about a future in which Airbnb runs the vacation rentals game.
For those who missed it, I've outlined my experience with AirBnB (as a non-host in a building with hosts) last week - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923849 (top comment)
For anyone defending AirBnB here's a nice list of things to read before you do so:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/item/airbnb-san-francisc...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1230/Berlin-squee...
http://tomslee.net/2014/05/the-shape-of-airbnbs-business.htm...
http://tomslee.net/2014/06/the-shape-of-airbnbs-business-ii....
The gist of virtually all of the complaints against AirBNB is that it imposes costs on the neighbors.
And of course, it does.
There is a multitude of ways of dealing with that. If you cut the neighbors in on the action, they may take a liking to your side-business. A smart host will do just that.
At the end of the day, the only ones who can't be placated are the ones losing business because of this. The hotels. Well, that's just business.
Wrong! This is very common. Half the listings in Manhattan are for parts of apartments.
Another problem is that even if you report that tenant, if they figure out who reported them, they may take revenge before they're evicted, since eviction proceedings take so long.
That said it's cheaper for me to stay in a Sheraton in Times Square than use Airbnb (which I usually use when traveling).
I'm not outright calling them scumbags right now, but I sure as heck will be doing a lot more research on the claims they're making about the effects they're having on my community.