Airbnb Suffers Big Defeat in Jersey City | Hacker News Reader

Airbnb Suffers Big Defeat in Jersey City

nytimes.com

72 pointsdangoldin74 comments

70 percent of voters supported the new regulations.

The new restrictions allow homeowners to rent out portions of their homes as long as they’re present during a guest’s stay. But they prohibit renters from listing their apartment and bar owners from renting a property on a short-term basis most of the year if they don’t live on-site, effectively banning large-scale Airbnb operators who had converted hundreds of condos and townhouses into makeshift hotels. It would, however, hurt residents who were making extra cash by renting out a second home for days at a time through Airbnb.

It sounds reasonable to me. I used to love staying in Airbnb’s but can’t stand the cheapness of it all as of late due to them turning into pure investments and no longer real homes.

I was going to post this section too. It sounds like a good law making the best of what Air BnB is best at. As for the last problem those residents could be helped by allowing only 1+ month renting of homes which may help people who haven't been able to unload their house yet or who are new to an area. Either way the point is to discourage home owners from owning multiple houses.

I love both kinds of AirBnBs.

> I used to love staying in Airbnb’s but can’t stand the cheapness of it all as of late due to them turning into pure investments and no longer real homes.

That's nice that you prefer one type of rental over the other. Why not allow both, so that others who prefer not having a homeowner intruding on their privacy don't need to deal with that?

Those are called hotels :-)

Because local housing naturally has a limited supply making it a natural monopoly in addition to the fact that, since it's very difficult to live without housing, it is a one-sided market without alternatives.

So, as much as you'd like to pretend it's just a matter of personal freedoms, bypassing housing codes via the guise of a tech company just enables negative externalities that restrict the personal freedoms of others. And the 'others' are the people who actually live there, making them more important than you.

If large scale operations are what's being considered wrong, then why not target that specially? E.g, if you use short term rental on more than 1 property, then the taxation on the 2nd one is going to be larger and larger until it's no longer profitable.

For people with just 1 investment property, they will still be able to rent it out short-term as it is possible today.

That sounds like a lot of loophole-ridden bureaucracy to accommodate non-residents driving up the price of housing.

Local housing has an artificially limited supply, actually. There's an absolute limit on housing per unit of area, but we get nowhere close to approaching that limit anywhere in the US. The real issue is zoning laws prohibiting building of new housing or favoring single family homes over apartment buildings creating markets where supply doesn't increase. If you address this and allow for building of higher density housing, prices will decrease and services like AirBNB stop being as big of an issue.

It doesn't help that local government politicians are frequently homeowners (and their constituents as well) that have a vested interest in keeping housing prices high. AirBNBs, apartment buildings, and high rises are going to negatively impact the value of their properties.

Not if there's induced demand. Areas without zoning laws have been tried, we usually tear them down.

Induced demand for housing, a thing that costs actual money to purchase, would just be an indicator that supply hasn't reached equilibrium with demand.

Then those who want to rent out their houses should be treated as hotels, taxed as hotels, regulated as hotels and obey zoning rules as hotels.

Because they are in fact, hotels.

they are not hotels, but serviced apartments. that is something different. i hate hotels. but i love serviced apartments. they have a kitchen, washing machine and everything i need to actually live there even for a short time. things that hotels don't have, or make very inconvenient to use.

Right, for you it's a great plus to have a single unit hotel but for the people who've just had a few single unit hotels opened outside their door/above their head/across the hall... we're wondering how these hotels managed to avoid the zoning laws!

it's NOT a hotel! it's a short term apartment rental. i don't want a hotel. zoning laws are what they are, but that doesn't mean they are justified.

long term rental, short term rentals, serviced apartments and hotels are all distinct categories. do not lump them together. they all address different needs for different people.

zoning laws ought to take that into account. personally i find US zoning laws overly restrictive, but thats my opinion, and others may feel differently.

what we should discuss is, what kind of zoning is appropriate, and for what reason. some people may like the mix of short and long term rentals, and some don't. it's a matter of taste. there is no objective standard that fits everyone.

> what we should discuss is, what kind of zoning is appropriate, and for what reason. some people may like the mix of short and long term rentals, and some don't.

Essentially the people who like short term rentals are the landlords who can extract higher revenue from short term rents and the people who can enjoy the benefits of a residential area by renting them. Maaaybe the local businesses that are tourist driven but I suspect that for the most part tourists decide where to go first and then pick the style of accomodations based on availability and pricing.

For everyone else in the residential area You've created a unit which is unavailable for locals, driving up long term rent/house prices. You've created a unit occupied by people who need not concern themselves with the long term consequences of their actions. (I don't want to p* off my neighbor with a loud party because I have to live with them for a long time) You've created a unit where a continuous stream of short term renters may accept more cramped quarters in order to save on cost, the effect being that a 2 bed apartment may effectively continuously house 9 people, creating undue noise and resource consumption, even if they are considerate neighbors. You've created a unit which needs to be cleaned as frequently as daily, creating noise.

I appreciate that these are externalities and you like the benefits a serviced apartment gives you but Airbnb has managed to bash these into residential areas and steal the value from those who live there with little recourse but to enforce the existing regulations (which the hosts are often breaching!) or regulate Airbnb out.

as a traveller i'd of course appreciate if the prices were not to high, and i also prefer to get a full apartment for myself, and not a tiny closet in a 2-bedroom that has been sliced to pieces.

i have stayed in both kinds of places. and i agree with you that those issues are real. i'd be totally fine with a limit on occupancy, and price control.

some issues could be solved with a license that a landlord can loose if they violate the rules. including excessive noise.

so i believe it is possible to manage serviced apartments in a responsible way that do not cause problems for other people in the building.

Short-term rental shares much more (99%) in common with hotels than long-term renting. The benefits you get from a short-term place only exist because the externalities are paid by other renters in the building, the police, the government, etc. It's a sham.

Airbnb will loathe the day it decided not to fight back against people buying 10 to 15 apartments and renting them via large scale operations on their platform. They had to know it was happening, and, while it may have helped them achieve their initial growth rates, it's dramatically turned public opinion against them. I don't know a single renter or home owner in NYC who actually wants Airbnb guests in their building.

Owner-occupied, full-time rental and part-time rental can co-exist, but not if all sides "dig in."

Consider the urban reaction if (a) buildings got to tax AirBnB stays and use the proceeds for improvements and/or reduce owner HOA costs, (b) the profile/reputation/support system were shared between AirBnB and building staff/management, so guests weren't unaccountable strangers and building staff and AirBnB could coordinate during emergencies.

As travelers, owners have also benefitted from AirBnB, which has been life-changing for providing kitchens, affordability and traveling with friends and family. AirBnB also solved the problem of large events taking away housing stock needed for everyday travel.

I mean, maybe? But how many buildings want to take the additional technological burden of coordinating this sort of thing

This sounds great, but since AirBnB is still private we don't know enough about their financials to know how viable this is for them. How much of a tax could they pay while still operating profitably (I do not mean they have to maintain their valuation or to continue to grow - I mean for them to be a self-sustaining company)?

Investors holds up AirBnB on a pedestal, but I've always been suspicious their numbers are not nearly good enough to justify their latest valuation. Apart from their continuing damage to their brand in an increasingly crowded space, I am just amazed that they only just barely made a profit in 2017. I fully understand it takes a ton of money, time, effort, and luck to grow a company to that size - but AirBnB was already 9 years old then, had been operating in a space by illegally skirting regulations, not only did they not play by the rules but they didn't pay competitive taxes, and all the while they own no expensive infrastructure! People have been suspicious their reviews are unreliable going back years, so they had already started to erode trust in their users. They are experimenting with creating their own hotels now, which is just utterly bizarre since their entire purpose was to offer an alternative to hotels (I mean it's okay to experiment when you're that big, but this is not one I can understand).

I really, really look forward to AirBnB's IPO.

Agreed, in theory, but what has Airbnb done to implement anything close to what you've described? From what I've seen, it's expansion without regard for existing residents.

You are proposing an AirBnB equivalent of a hotel tax. It’s basically bribing/paying the permanent residents to accept the cost of the AirBnBs.

It depends on what the community is willing to accept. The richer communities probably would outright reject it. The next tier will accept something like you suggest combined with some monetary benefit. The one below that will just get bought out.

The middle happened to my neighborhood when a very exclusive school wanted to be rezoned to move in. They basically legally bribed the city with donations to the school district, voluntarily paying property taxes even though they didn’t need to as a nonprofit, and lastly limiting traffic via buses and shifting school hours. Their initial attempt was rejected and the above sugar was what got them in.

Jesus Christ, AirBnB didn't invent vacation rentals. There was even a movie about them 35 years ago. The non-Martha Plimpton girl from The Goonies was in it.

they haven't, but they made it super accessible to my mother and the nice old lady upstairs both as a host and a visitor

Perhaps Airbnb saw how Uber went almost entirely unpunished in its pivot from ride-sharing to taxi company and thought they wanted some of that.

> Airbnb will loathe the day it decided not to fight back against people buying 10 to 15 apartments and renting them via large scale operations on their platform.

Airbnb quickly realised, like the people that were buying and renting out all those apartments, that more is more. The mom and pop single-room listings are hard work and low margin, as are the people that typically stay in them. The real money is in business travellers and professionally run accommodation.

If that's the market they (both Airbnb and the "hosts" on their platform) want to serve, fine.

That business is usually called "hotels", and is subject to a bunch of regulations around zoning, taxes, inspections, health & safety....

> I don't know a single renter or home owner in NYC who actually wants Airbnb guests in their building.

If your opinion is based on this personal knowledge then it's obviously flawed. Because for sure the owners (and even renters) selling on AirBNB obviously want guests in their building. I emphasize their, because it's their building also.

There are lots of businesses that we, the masses, hate, yet continue to operate and do quite well thank you very much. AirBNB isn't a monopoly but they do have the platform network effect going for them, so anything maximizing revenue (even at the cost of public opinion) is arguably a good thing.

>If your opinion is based on this personal knowledge then it's obviously flawed. Because for sure the owners (and even renters) selling on AirBNB obviously want guests in their building. I emphasize their, because it's their building also.

Do they actually live in that building? I don't live in NYC but it's the same case in Toronto. If the building has a lot of people renting units, you'll see AirBnbs and condo boards won't even try to ban them (Cityplace, entertainment district, bay street corridor et all) but the buildings that have unit owners livings in them will try to ban Airbnbs.

While more than 96,100 Jersey FTA: City residents use Airbnb when traveling, the defeat underscored the difficulty that sharing economy companies increasingly face in mobilizing users as a constituency.

Seems a bit NIMBYish doesn't it? As in residents happy to use AirBnB in someone else's neighborhood but damned if they'll extend the same to people visiting their own.

Exactly those are the ones who could legitimately use it, without driving rents. That is the original idea for AirBnB anyhow.

Why not put a limit for 30 Days in the Regulation for when you are not home? It would be easy for AirBnB to limit and it would not be economical for commercial offerings.

This isn't actually an attack on their political stance though, it's just attacking their personal morals.

In my opinion, if you say that a company unfairly avoids costs of regulations then it makes perfect sense to use them and transfer that saving to your own pocket. You're just confirming that you really believe it's an unfair market.

Of course, AirBnB doesn't reveal the period of time that 96,100 residents used it and what percentage are still active. AirBnB has been around for more than 10 years, so the 96,100 users are over that long span of time!

Indeed, though the population of Jersey City is about 270,000 so it’s about a third of that population - that’s a significant number even if some have used it only once and then never again 9 years ago.

I applaud this decision by Jersey City and yet I’m about to stay in an Airbnb for 4 months beginning in January. Why? Because there’s not much other choice. People who used to offer rooms for short to medium terms to students, interns, and other non-rich business travellers have switched over to Airbnb and found they can make way more money doing it. The only places I see that are not in Airbnb are clear scams (photos literally stolen from some developer showroom site, refusing to let you see the place without a deposit) or they’re slums that target only the most desperate renters.

So I wouldn’t describe them as “happy to use Airbnb.” Airbnb is pretty bad. It’s just less bad than everything else.

You can still rent out a room of your apartment if you are living in it yourself. The issue is about units that the owners are not residing in themselves.

Why would I want to stay in a room of somebody's apartment?

This was the entire premise of Airbnb; you get a cheap lodging (sometimes literally on an air bed), and the owner (optionally) might even make you breakfast. It then kind of evolved into a gray area, with some businesses essentially running large numbers of apartments. Many argue that at that scale, it is disruptive to others living nearby, and should be regulated as a normal hotel operation, etc.

Have you never heard of a traditional BnB? The charm is a welcoming host, home cooked breakfast, a small group of like minded travelers to talk to, and unique accommodations. Usually there's 2-8 bedrooms. They've been together since the dawn of modern civilization.

As long as the host stays out of your way when you need (eg, anytime other than when you need them), it's rather quite nice. It's hard to beat the conversation you have over a glass of wine after dinner. I've made lifelong friends this way.

Sure, no one wants to stay in someone's studio with a wall divider, but thats absurd.

Why not? If you don't want that, get a hotel room.

Because presumably it's cheaper and a more personal experience than a hotel. Hotel's aren't going away if the idea of staying in a room in someone's apartment isn't appealing to you.

Vacation rental homes have been around long before the internet as well if you need a larger place to stay.

I believe the new ordinance restricts short-term rentals to owner-occupied units. So you would have to own the apartment.

I’ve been consistently surprised how insulated Airbnb has been to the level of criticism that Uber and Lyft have more publicly faced for many years now...maybe a part of it is that the impact Airbnb has on a city is much more subtle so most don’t necessarily pay attention unless it’s directly impacting their life.

Have they been? I don't know if they were anti-AirBnB protests on the streets, but their meatspace ads have been defaced in the past. At least on HN, AirBnB has been getting comparable levels of criticism to Uber, for roughly the same reason - they're burning down society for profit, piece by piece.

You don't know exactly how much they have to do with it, they could just be a symptom and a scapegoat.

AirBnB has about 10 Billion in gross bookings (fees are about a quarter) worldwide now, so when they started out it was less. Real estate values have risen in the trillions since the financial crisis and the low interest policy.

The money from AirBnB goes mostly to renters, the ones who didn't benefit from those value increases. Also some of the money went to higher prices in the Hotel industry, who faces more competition now.

So I think it's much more complicated with AirBnB.

http://archive.is/cP124

Airbnb destroyed my neighborhood (crime, noise and rent saw dramatic increases) and was a factor in me moving to Germany with my entire family. I am hoping more ppl get the message and ban them outright.

> Airbnb destroyed my neighborhood (crime, noise and rent saw dramatic increases)

Where was this?

Colorado, sorry for not being more specific.

That’s a shame. Airbnb really changed the game for my friends and I. We’ve been travelling all over the world with airbnb.

Then you've no loss. You can still stay in houses with people living in the home. Just not the fake ones where someone pretends to live on site and all the stuff is an Ikea show room.

Why would I want to stay with some rando on vacation?

Because it's often an excellent experience and makes the vacation better. I rented out a bedroom in my 2BR apartment in NYC for several years and it was truly a wonderful experience. I had a one-week minimum and therefore hosted almost entirely tourists visiting NYC from overseas (as opposed to random people in NYC who needed a place to crash for a night).

With very very few exceptions, I met warm friendly people. They liked have a local in the same place to talk about plans and get suggestions, I liked some new faces to have coffee with in the morning. Everyone won.

I stayed in a room in Berlin once. It was nice to get to know a local a bit and get tips on what to go see. If you want a sterile experience, book a hotel.

Hotels are often located in touristy areas and lack nice amenities like kitchens. Is it that hard to understand that there exists demand for whole-home vacation rentals?

I wasn't arguing that that demand doesn't exist; I've rented out whole houses on airbnb myself.

Homestays are generally great:

1. interesting, respectful people / less "sterile" environments.

2. actually helpful in navigating the area.

3. broadens everybody's views (read: politics) to meet other people in person, see how they live and understand their viewpoints.

4. appliances/etc tend to work better, because they need them themselves.

I've had nothing but good and great experiences with homestays. I've also hosted which has been ok-good: 100% respectful and kind, but not always that interesting.

(I've been hosting/traveling for 15 years i.e. long before AirBnB)

Exactly this. I'd add that homestays allow me to pay for just what I need - a comfortable/safe/private room to stay in. A lot of the extras you're paying for at a hotel are totally unnecessary for me:

-someone making the bed + tidying the room

-fancy buffet

-facilities like gym/spa/TV

-general feeling of 'luxury'

Obviously there are some people who do care about these things, but as I don't I'd rather not pay for them.

Amen, the communal aspect is well worth it. Especially due to BnB's (not AirBnBs) are a bit more expensive, so the community is self selecting. You have to want to be there.

Some do, some don’t. I despise having to communicate with people.

I used AirBnB when it first launched and was absolutely floored that people would actually want to spend the night(s) in a random strangers house with them present. This was after me experiencing it first hand. It was quite terrible.

Fast forward to AirBnB becoming what it is today where the majority of users select “entire house” and it makes more sense.

The problem now is that they are essentially the same price as a cheap hotel, which for my money is the far superior option (the hotel), so we’re back to AirBnB making no sense to me again.

Perhaps I’m an outlier and the whole couch surfing market is that big, but it seems like AirBnB is balancing being a hotel (entire house) without really being a hotel. That’s a tricky spot to be in when regulators come knocking.

For some people, the fact that it’s like a hotel (entire place to yourself) but a) in a residential neighborhood, and b) with a kitchen and other amenities of home that are usually missing or very expensive in a hotel (laundry, parking, etc.)

If an actual hotel is the superior option to you, then, sure.

exactly this. i'll take an airbnb serviced apartment over a hotel any time.

The real joke here is: those AirBnB apartments often belong to Hotels ;)

My best stays have all been shared with the host. It's a way to experience another culture. I've also rented my own flat on Airbnb.

"Couch surfing" is a weird way to put it, and so too is "random stranger". They're not random, you chose them, and you're generally in a bedroom.

Maybe this is a cultural thing? Middle class families having lodgers is super normal in the UK, I figured it was the same everywhere.

If I wanted a hotel, I'd book a hotel.

Hotels are superior if you don’t want to cook. That, to me, is the central advantage of AirBnB: you can get one with a kitchen. Otherwise I see no reason to use it and I’m also not opposed to alternatives because I can very well see the destructive effects it’s having.

We always want to cook when we go on vacation and that’s not doable in a hotel. So AirBnB it is, most of the time.

My current use case for AirBnB is when I travel in a group (4+ people) and we would like to stay together. Getting a 2 bedroom AirBnB with a working kitchen and maybe even a private pool is a great place to spend time with closed ones.

I don't think anyone who is traveling the world to see interesting places will miss staying in Jersey City one bit.

Staying in jersey city is a great alternative to NYC/Hoboken. Uber through the tunnel or to the ferry and you’re in Manhattan very quickly.

I had an obligation in Hoboken a couple years back and stayed in a spare bedroom in jersey city for (I believe) $38/night.

Hoboken is so interesting. It was once a fairly poor neighborhood, but as real estate in NYC became what it is, many moved to Hoboken and now houses that were 300k when I was younger are 1mil+. The views are astounding.

Yes very nice place. You could say it’s lost some of its charm or that its greatly improved.

Originally from there and would love to go back but it’s prohibitively expensive, even for software developers!

There's also the PATH which is a subway that goes straight into Manhattan from Jersey City.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com