I'm not ideologically against regulation, don't get me wrong, but I DO recognize that sometimes 'big hammers' affect big and small scale landlords equally, and that's not fair. And quite frankly if you're disrupted because I'm AirBNBing one of my units, just come down the stairs and knock on my door and we can talk about it.
Joking aside - New York housing laws need to do a better job, whether it's housing code, fines, or anti AirBNB laws, of distinguishing between big and small scale operations.
You can't make subjective judgements about small vs big landlords because frankly, lots of landlords, big or small are scum and can only be managed with a stick.
I don't need to knock on your door -- if you want to be a hotelier, buy a hotel.
A hotel has shared facilities, a check in desk and some other things.
It also does not meet the definition of a bed and breakfast, which by definition serves food.
So by the zoning of my town I am not operating a hotel or a bed and breakfast.
NYC has laws that may seem onerous to you, but they exist as a direct response to problems that have already happened in the past and are already manifesting themselves in the modern AirBnb era. The issues are real, and the company has taken an attitude that the law doesn't apply to them. Fuck them.
Airbnb often implies that they are like Uber/Lyft, fighting some evil hotel lobby. That's also bullshit -- Uber is fighting cartels with strong local regulation at the municipal level. Hotels aren't organized the same way and frankly don't need the regulatory protection that cabs do. To the contrary, my understanding is that Airbnb was the party doing lots of heavy lobbying in Albany.
If they were smart, instead of carrying on like children, they should come up with a co-op hotel model that is compatible with the law, less capital intensive and closer to the spirit of their platform.
Really? What exactly is the compelling problem solved by requiring all short term rentals to have a "check-in" desk? Why shouldn't I be able to rent out my apartment for a few weeks while I go on vacation?
This is straight up protectionism. I wonder how much it cost the hotel industry to buy this legislation.
As an AirBnB host, renter, and apartment building tenant, I do not want a "co-op hotel model." I want to be able to not spend thousands of dollars a month on a space which isn't even being used. It's ridiculous to try to spin this as some helpful regulation.
If you are truly renting your apartment home while you're away, you're actually fine with doing so with respect to this law. You're probably violating your lease or HOA contract, but that's your problem.
If you're buying or renting apartments to sublet as ersatz hotels, then you have a problem. It's not society's problem to save your from a poor investment choice.
This legislation passed in an environment where the US Attorney is likely tapping the phones of any remaining unindicted political players in Albany. Hotels aren't well organized to begin with, and I doubt they had an opportunity to make huge contributions to influence this. Real estate moguls like reduced housing supply as they get to reap higher rents, so they don't care. (Feel free to link to the board of elections filings if I'm wrong).
The public outcry against Airbnb is strong and consistent, and this law imho is unusually democratic and fair one. Everyone got what they claimed to want. True Airbnb hosts can continue to share their homes. You can continue to rent them. The only party hurt is Airbnb who has been deceptive about their true intentions from day 1 -- so fuck them.
Seriously? You don't know why you should have someone available in person if the people staying at your hotel have an issue? There's a reason your homeowner's insurance is cheaper than the insurance for a hotel.
The idea that tenants are able to knock on your door means you shouldn't have to follow this law kind of demonstrates an attitude I've seen with a number of small but not "good" landlords I've had.
In my neighborhood, for example, it's rare for houses to be renovated fully permitted because the entire permitting process is designed around large scale construction projects. There's an entire shadow economy that goes just to paying thousands to architects, expediters, inspectors, licensed pros, etc., in addition to the actual work. That's just one example. The end result is that people don't do it, because they can't afford it unless they have a lot of capital.
Now the law already does this distinction I'm mentioning: for example a three or four family home has to be registered for the rentals to be legal, a two-family doesn't. Also the code is different, and more broadly the Multiple Dwelling Law treats them differently.
Going back to AirBNB, concretely I think a good compromise would be to limit the number of units for rent to one, and take down the ones that have turned rental buildings into hotels. People who own big rental buildings do these things. What's left are co-ops and condos. Co-ops have self-regulating powers to evict people. Condos, which someone here complained upon, are a different story (even if they have house rules with fines, I don't know how that's enforced).
The 'knocking on the door' comment was an attempt to try to separate the large from the small. As for myself I'm always above board and legal, because I'm risk-averse, but my risk-averse nature also means I don't rent to anyone I don't know or trust. Partly because of comments about everyone needing sticks. Ironically I've been on that side, which is why I decided I didn't like being a tenant anymore. I haven't used AirBNB, but plan to do so -legally. I do have a right to feel wronged by the passage of the law, especially when I hear all the anti-AirBNB comments not apply to my situation (eg. 'disruption to the residents').
A multiple dwelling "is a dwelling which is either rented, leased, let or hired out, to be occupied, or is occupied as the residence or home of three or more families independently of each other."
A Class A is a multiple dwellings "which is occupied, as a rule, for permanent residence purposes. This class shall include tenements, flat houses, maisonette apartments, apartment houses ..."
A Class B is a multiple dwelling "occupied, as a rule transiently, as the more or less temporary abode of individuals or families who are lodged with or without meals".
There are reasons, good and bad, that states and municipalities have regulations about zoning for commercial, residential, mixed, and other use. There can be a discussion about how well they're applied, misapplied or whatever.
Here's my opinion: I think you, and other transient-rental aficionados, have the burden of showing sufficient reason for allowing you and AirBnB to avoid civil and possibly criminal (depending on circumstances) sanction for breaking the laws. You also have the burden of showing why the rules should be changed to permit your activities subsequently.
I've never used Airbnb, but unless there are serious harms to people, where is the harm and why should the law be followed?
The neighbors onto whom AirBNB providers offload their externalities.
Yes, there are bad guests occasionally. But there are also bad tenants occasionally—and the former is a hell of a lot easier to deal with quickly.
This is why my land owning neighbors love me and are happy with the direction the neighborhood is changing into.