NYC Kneecapped Airbnb. Private property being treated as city's housing stock
reason.com
reason.com
We have laws and regulations around things like noise, parking, etc which apply equally to homeowners, long term renters, short term renters, guests, contractors, etc.
Does having a neighbor who rents their place on Airbnb really change your life compared to a neighbor who has frequent social gatherings or has a large family or works night shift? It seems like the correct solution here is to improve action by parking enforcement, towing companies, building security, HOA or police depending on the exact issue and severity, rather than take away the right of people to rent out their place.
a) it attracts a different crowd/behaviors. eg someone on vacation is more likely to be blasting music at 1am on a Wednesday than someone who has work the next day. And they're more likely to screw up basic etiquette like "don't park on my property" that comes more easily to people who know where the property line is.
b) It's potentially a different person staying every day. So I can go over and say "please turn down your music" tonight, but 3 days later I have to go and do it all over again when a new person is staying there. Having confrontations with strangers is not fun for me. Some cities with licensing are more proactive about making the owners responsible for their customer's actions, but that isnt the case everywhere.
Plus even though Airbnb house party shootings are relatively rare, having to ask someone to be quiet or move their car is still probably the most dangerous thing you'll do on a given day.
The proliferation of short term rentals has had negative effects on housing affordability across the country, so anything that helps pop this bubble is a net benefit to new homeowners. I couldn't care less about existing homeowners and declining property values in the face of increasing supply because owning your housing should be expensive, but not something that's unreachable with unsustainable asset inflation without similar real wage increases.
Espcially since the number of short term rentals owned by companies specifically for that purpose have increased.
So, I'm not a fan of corps being allowed to turn residential neighborhoods into hotels.
In spite of feeling like major regulatory reform is needed, I'm finding it hard to understand the point of som eof the NYC restrictions.
"No door in the unit can be locked"? <-- What is that supposed to accomplish?
You're not allowed to keep renters out of utility closets? or a room where you store your personal articles while out of town and renting the unit?
I think it wold really be more effective to regulate the density of short term rentals, and the ownsership of property specifically for the purpose of short term rental (although this might be hard to specify well).
It prevents sequestering a room or rooms from other rooms, similar to how some units in hotels have doors connecting them that can be locked.
Made to avoid that sort of loophole exploitation.
"The city is treating our private property as the city's housing stock."
I have not misrepresented the theme of the article.
ALL private housing is a "city's housing stock".
The idea that just because someone can afford to buy something entitles them to do whatever they want with it is estreemism.
If the definition of "property" was restricted to an individual's personal possessions, then stronger demands for autonomy are justified, but when it includes everything owned and operated for profit, we're no longer talking about a person's right to their own property, but about a business model. Which should be more hightly regulated.